PDA

View Full Version : NFL Network Top 100 Current Players


Pages : [1] 2 3

katnip
04-29-2011, 12:58 PM
Anyone going to watch it? I think its premiers Saturday at 8pm eastern time. I might.

boknows34
04-29-2011, 02:32 PM
Aaron Rodgers is #11.

Splat
04-29-2011, 03:12 PM
I'm looking forward to it even though I will end up disagreeing with alot of it.

gpngc
04-29-2011, 03:18 PM
I'm seriously worried there will be 0 Seahawks on the list... Maybe Tatupu?

Saints-Tigers
04-29-2011, 03:20 PM
Voted by the players right?

Players are high on respect, key vets will go higher than young up and comers.

Curious to see who the players think is the best.

Complex
04-29-2011, 03:21 PM
All I know is that Mike Williams is ranked in the 80s and Suh is in there.

gpngc
04-29-2011, 03:34 PM
^Agreed.

Quick prediction on the top 30:

1) Tom Brady
2) Peyton Manning
3) Drew Brees
4) Ray Lewis
5) Adrian Peterson
6) Andre Johnson
7) Larry Fitzgerald
8) Darrelle Revis
9) Patrick Willis
10) Troy Polamalu
11) Aaron Rodgers
12) Julius Peppers
13) Chris Johnson
14) Demarcus Ware
15) Nnamdi Asomugha
16) Ed Reed
17) Charles Woodson
18) Michael Vick
19) Clay Matthews
20) Jared Allen
21) Dwight Freeney
22) Champ Bailey
23) Ben Roethlisberger
24) Roddy White
25) Maurice Jones-Drew
26) Kevin Williams
27) Calvin Johnson
28) Joe Thomas
29) James Harrison
30) Jake Long

freebirdsrams02
04-29-2011, 03:55 PM
I'm seriously worried there will be 0 Seahawks on the list... Maybe Tatupu?

It was said that 2 teams do not have a player in the top 100. I think Buffalo might be one, but the other one I am not sure of.

GoRavens
04-29-2011, 03:59 PM
I think without a doubt Ray Lewis will be top 3.
Here's my guess;
3) Andre Johnson
2) Ray Lewis
1) Tom Brady

Splat
04-29-2011, 04:05 PM
I think without a doubt Ray Lewis will be top 3.
Here's my guess;
3) Andre Johnson
2) Ray Lewis
1) Tom Brady

No way Peyton isn't top 3.

GoRavens
04-29-2011, 04:11 PM
No way Peyton isn't top 3.
-to be a troll, I have him at #4. Sowwy

CrankthatCrabtree
04-29-2011, 04:26 PM
It was said that 2 teams do not have a player in the top 100. I think Buffalo might be one, but the other one I am not sure of.

THe list will be void if Kyle Williams isn't on it. That would be pathetic.

Complex
04-29-2011, 05:00 PM
There are 2 teams with no players and the packers have the most with 7 or 8.

dannyz
04-29-2011, 10:56 PM
I wonder who will present Suh. Also how many Rookies do you guys think will be on it?

whatadai
04-30-2011, 01:06 AM
Brady over Manning? Seems like Manning would get more respect from opposing players than Brady would.

Docta
04-30-2011, 01:08 AM
Wasn't Manning over Brady in their all-time top 100 list? Don't see why it would change in one season.

Iamcanadian
04-30-2011, 01:11 AM
Just another publicity stunt to increase viewership during the dullest part of the season when nobody really cares about football.
Let's see, teammates will vote for their own once you get past the top 15 to 20, players will vote for players in their own division since they know them the best, etc. etc. etc.
Let's see, top 100 players of all time, #1 Jerry Rice??? If I held a draft today, how many GM's would take Jerry Rice with their 1st pick over a QB = 0. He was an absolute great player but I doubt he would go before round 3 in a real draft which included every player who ever played the game.
1. QB's
2. DE's
3. LT's
4. DT's
5. CB's
6. RB's
7. WR's
etc., etc,., etc.

Complex
04-30-2011, 06:48 PM
Its about to start and Miami University has the most players on the list :). WRs have the most listed followed by Qbs.

Oh yeah CJ better be ahead of Peterson.

Basileus777
04-30-2011, 07:08 PM
#100) Donovan McNabb
#99) Chad Clifton
#98) Darren McFadden
#97) Shaun Phillips
#96) Nick Collins
#95) Jon Beason
#94) Frank Gore
#93) Eric Berry
#92) Lance Briggs
#91) Terrell Owens

BigBanger
04-30-2011, 07:11 PM
McNabb on this list is a ******* joke. I must have misunderstood the criteria.

Nalej
04-30-2011, 07:17 PM
Oh yeah Peterson better be ahead of CJ.

Fixed it for you :)

Complex
04-30-2011, 07:18 PM
If Mcnabb is on the list Randy Moss better be.

M.O.T.H.
04-30-2011, 07:22 PM
This is gonna be one hell of an odd looking list.

Basileus777
04-30-2011, 07:41 PM
Berry made it. Nice.

BigBanger
04-30-2011, 08:01 PM
I would say the Top 10 players from that list are:

1. Jon Beason
2. Lance Briggs
3. Shaun Philips
4. Chad Clifton
5. Terrell Owens
6. Nick Collins
7. Eric Berry
8. Darren McFadden
9. Frank Gore

I refuse to add McNabb to a list of players that are significantly better than him.

Complex
04-30-2011, 08:13 PM
I would say the Top 10 players from that list are:

1. Jon Beason
2. Lance Briggs
3. Shaun Philips
4. Chad Clifton
5. Terrell Owens
6. Nick Collins
7. Eric Berry
8. Darren McFadden
9. Frank Gore

I refuse to add McNabb to a list of players that are significantly better than him.


McFadden should be ahead of Berry and maybe Collins.

Complex
04-30-2011, 08:28 PM
The fans that are voting at NFL.com are dumb, they have Joe Thomas at 96.

boknows34
05-01-2011, 12:59 AM
Let's see, top 100 players of all time, #1 Jerry Rice??? If I held a draft today, how many GM's would take Jerry Rice with their 1st pick over a QB = 0. He was an absolute great player but I doubt he would go before round 3 in a real draft which included every player who ever played the game.
1. QB's
2. DE's
3. LT's
4. DT's
5. CB's
6. RB's
7. WR's
etc., etc,., etc.

The series was the 'Top 100 Players of All-Time', and not how they would be selected in an all-time draft. Think of it more like a team's Big Board for the draft. Patrick Peterson and AJ Green were for most draft pundits the top 2 prospects this year regardless of position, in much the same way a WR (Rice) and a RB (Brown) finished 1-2 in the Top 100. Why should legends like Rice, Brown, Payton, Sanders and Ronnie Lott be penalised for the position they play and finish behind Joe Namath and Troy Aikman? Its simply a case of asking yourself is Player A better than Player B?

Now if you were building a team through an 'all-time draft' then yes, you would have it dominated by QBs at the top like Montana, Unitas, Marino, Elway, Brady, Peyton before you got to any other position as the cornerstones of your franchise, but that's a completely different argument.

Take last year's draft as another example. Sam Bradford was clearly the right choice for the Rams at #1 overall because of the impact a QB can have on a team, but Ndamukong Suh was and still is the clear cut best football player from that draft.

Draft: Bradford > Suh
Top 100: Suh > Bradford

Smash28Dash34
05-01-2011, 01:24 AM
Who presented Jon Beason does anyone know?

The Great Jonathan Vilma
05-01-2011, 10:34 AM
John Fox spoke for Beason

wordofi
05-01-2011, 10:42 AM
The fans that are voting at NFL.com are dumb, they have Joe Thomas at 96.

When you don't play a skill position and are on a sucky team, that's what happens.

phlysac
05-01-2011, 06:18 PM
Not even being a homer but Frank Gore so low is just sad.

ViperVisor
05-01-2011, 06:56 PM
Not even being a homer but Frank Gore so low is just sad.

Them not mentioning how he has also been a consistent pass target is tardation.

Frank has carried the team but I wish we would of traded him to a competent team to see what he could do and get his due. Probably will waste his last good years here.

phlysac
05-01-2011, 07:02 PM
Them not mentioning how he has also been a consistent pass target is tardation.

Frank has carried the team but I wish we would of traded him to a competent team to see what he could do and get his due. Probably will waste his last good years here.

It just rubs me the wrong way when, not only players that have been less impactful, but players that have been in the league for ONE SEASON are ranked more highly. Oh well, it's just a list.

Splat
05-01-2011, 08:01 PM
This is grestest players of 2011 as in what you did in 2011 not what you have done in your career. I think some people are missing the point of the show.

bored of education
05-01-2011, 08:04 PM
Urrich Burry number 93!!!

phlysac
05-01-2011, 10:32 PM
I think some people are missing the point of the show.

Theres validity in that as far as my opinion was concerned. I reserve further judgement until the majority of the list has been revealed.

My only reservation on that assumption is that each player's profile is a career compilation and NOT a synopsis of the 2010 season at all.

Monomach
05-01-2011, 10:49 PM
Urrich Burry number 93!!!

Just means Russell Okung is going to be top 5. ERIC BERRY IS ONLY AS GOOD AS A SIXTH ROUNDER BLARGHHHHH!!

/Morton

TACKLE
05-01-2011, 11:12 PM
Beaston is embarrassingly low. He shouldn't have even been on this show for another couple weeks.

Nalej
05-01-2011, 11:29 PM
Beaston is embarrassingly low. He shouldn't have even been on this show for another couple weeks.

I agree. I was shocked when I saw him in the 90's

katnip
05-02-2011, 10:49 AM
I hope Patrick Willis gets the respect he deserves.

I wonder if Ray Lewis will present him, since he was on espn or nfl network saying how Willis reminds him of himself.

M.O.T.H.
05-02-2011, 11:02 AM
This is grestest players of 2011 as in what you did in 2011 not what you have done in your career. I think some people are missing the point of the show.

The 2011 season hasnt even been played yet. It's a list of the best players in the game right now...heading into the 2011 season.

MasterShake
05-02-2011, 02:10 PM
I hope Patrick Willis gets the respect he deserves.

I wonder if Ray Lewis will present him, since he was on espn or nfl network saying how Willis reminds him of himself.

Patrick Willis should be presented by Brad Smith, if he can actually speak of him without twitching...

phlysac
05-02-2011, 04:45 PM
Patrick Willis should be presented by Brad Smith, if he can actually speak of him without twitching...

Quoted for TRUTH!!!!

bbm-NhB4e5U

bucfan12
05-05-2011, 08:04 PM
#100) Donovan McNabb
#99) Chad Clifton
#98) Darren McFadden
#97) Shaun Phillips
#96) Nick Collins
#95) Jon Beason
#94) Frank Gore
#93) Eric Berry
#92) Lance Briggs
#91) Terrell Owens

Owens is on this list? Really? Beason should be higher. He's a great player on a crap team.

Crazy_Chris
05-09-2011, 06:19 PM
Really last nights episode got no discussion at all? :|

#90: Joe Flacco
#89: Adrian Wilson
#88: Vernon Davis
#87: Jordan Gross
#86: Josh Freeman
#85: Jason Babin
#84: Josh Cribbs
#83: Mike Williams Tampa Bay
#82: Lamarr Woodley
#81: BJ Raji

Vernon Davis, and Lamarr Woodley are way too low. Adrian Wilson, and Joe Flacco are also too low but just by a bit. Also very surprised to see Mike Williams at #83.

CrankthatCrabtree
05-09-2011, 06:21 PM
Mike Williams put up 900+ yards and 10 TDs in his rookie season. Nice to see him get some respect.

Jason Babin at 84....WTF


Josh Cribbs ahead of two franchise qbs :/

Complex
05-09-2011, 06:21 PM
Joe Flacco and McNabb should not be on the list. I missed I forgot it was on, I think I was watching the NBA playoffs.

Jason Babin should around 95-100.

Crazy_Chris
05-09-2011, 06:26 PM
Mike Williams put up 900+ yards and 10 TDs in his rookie season. Nice to see him get some respect.

Jason Babin at 84....WTF


Josh Cribbs ahead of two franchise qbs :/

Yea I was puzzled by Josh Cribbs too. I can buy him worthy of top 100 but I would say 84 is a little bit too high.


Edit:

I'm seriously worried there will be 0 Seahawks on the list... Maybe Tatupu?

It was said that 2 teams do not have a player in the top 100. I think Buffalo might be one, but the other one I am not sure of.


On last nights show they said the 2 teams with 0 players were the Bills and Seahawks.

K Train
05-09-2011, 06:38 PM
4 steelers in the top 100 is good. i personally think woodley is too high and if i was voting for steelers its would be ben, troy, harrison and pouncey...but 4 is good.

if 4/100= 1/25 and the steelers are 1/32 of the league id say thats pretty successful

Splat
05-09-2011, 08:22 PM
Joe Flacco and McNabb should not be on the list.

You don't think Flacco is one of the 100 best players in the NFL?

CrankthatCrabtree
05-09-2011, 08:39 PM
Yea I was puzzled by Josh Cribbs too. I can buy him worthy of top 100 but I would say 84 is a little bit too high.


Edit:



On last nights show they said the 2 teams with 0 players were the Bills and Seahawks.

...Kyle Williams isn't on the list.

What a ************* travesty.

DoughBoy
05-09-2011, 08:50 PM
I'll be so pissed if Jason Babin makes this list over Jason Jones.

Complex
05-09-2011, 08:54 PM
You don't think Flacco is one of the 100 best players in the NFL?

No, he has played crappy in every playoff game besides the Kansas City game.

Caddy
05-09-2011, 10:33 PM
Josh Freeman AND Mike Williams on the list is awesome, but Freeman should be ahead of Williams...

bucfan12
05-10-2011, 06:05 AM
Josh Freeman AND Mike Williams on the list is awesome, but Freeman should be ahead of Williams...

Yeah I dont understand that at all. Freeman carried that offense. They probably should have had Freeman at 83 and Williams 86.

BloodBrother
05-10-2011, 09:07 AM
Tramon Williams won't make the list either, seeing as how they said 7 Packers made it and already they've had 3 on so far with Clifton at #99, Nick Collins at #96 and B.J. Raji at #81. The other 4 are clearly going to be Rodgers, Matthews, Jennings and Woodson. Sure, last season was Williams breakout year but come on? The list is top players of 2011. He should be on it over Clifton IMO but whatever

the players compiled this list and we see every year how they are with their pro bowl voting

agreed with others that the Bills should have had Kyle Williams on the list as well

phlysac
05-10-2011, 09:20 AM
It'd be interesting to actually know how the players were selected to vote. Many of these "100 Best" also appeared on the players' "25 Most Overrated" list in 2010. Terrell Owens and Shaun Phillips being the 1st to appear on both.

BloodBrother
05-10-2011, 09:51 AM
Don't know what players compiled this list but I'd say its a given that declining vets will litter this list based on what they did in the past rather than how they played in 2010. Hence why McNabb made the cut at #100.

Iamcanadian
05-13-2011, 10:49 AM
Don't know what players compiled this list but I'd say its a given that declining vets will litter this list based on what they did in the past rather than how they played in 2010. Hence why McNabb made the cut at #100.

Right on. Add in that QB is by far the most important position on any team and if you had the GM's draft today from those currently in the NFL, around the top 12 picks would all be QB's.
If they were drafting from the all time list, a player like Jerry Rice wouldn't even see round 1, probably not even round 2. QB's would be the 1st 32 picks followed by DE's(OLB's from 3-4 teams who can rush the passer would be included here.) and LT's. After that DT's. CB's and RB's would dominate the draft. Then would come the WR's, LB's and Safeties. The draft would finish up with the OG's, OC's and TE's.
These type of lists are to keep fans watching the NFLN during the dull part of the season and are usually absurd in their results.

The Great Jonathan Vilma
05-13-2011, 12:39 PM
Right on. Add in that QB is by far the most important position on any team and if you had the GM's draft today from those currently in the NFL, around the top 12 picks would all be QB's.
If they were drafting from the all time list, a player like Jerry Rice wouldn't even see round 1, probably not even round 2. QB's would be the 1st 32 picks followed by DE's(OLB's from 3-4 teams who can rush the passer would be included here.) and LT's. After that DT's. CB's and RB's would dominate the draft. Then would come the WR's, LB's and Safeties. The draft would finish up with the OG's, OC's and TE's.
These type of lists are to keep fans watching the NFLN during the dull part of the season and are usually absurd in their results.

I may have missed where you went with this, but the list isn't a fantasy draft or a mock draft. It is a ranking of players at all positions, and their overall talent at that position relative to others at theirs. I don't get the point of saying there should be more QB's, or less guys of another position based on importance. Fact is that a real good TE should make it over an average QB, regardless of position importance.

Just my opinion

Iamcanadian
05-13-2011, 01:20 PM
I may have missed where you went with this, but the list isn't a fantasy draft or a mock draft. It is a ranking of players at all positions, and their overall talent at that position relative to others at theirs. I don't get the point of saying there should be more QB's, or less guys of another position based on importance. Fact is that a real good TE should make it over an average QB, regardless of position importance.

Just my opinion

I only said 12 QB's not every QB and by any standard, even an average QB is more important to a team than a real good TE.
I thought it was the top 100 players in the NFL, isn't that how it is labeled.
As for ranking players by position based on their overall talent, McNabb wouldn't come close to the top QB's at this stage of his career, no way is he anywhere near the top 100.
IMO, these types of lists serve only one purpose for NFLN, it is a gimmick to give viewers a reason to turn on their channel in the off season, it has no correlation to the top 100 players in the NFL today.

K Train
05-13-2011, 01:38 PM
lol at all the "omg (insert good player on a bad team) is too low im disgusted" replies here

The Great Jonathan Vilma
05-13-2011, 07:32 PM
well, it is a list of the top players by the actual players. I believe there must be additional factors that go into it. I think the assumption is that McNabb will bounce back. This was his first subpar season. I agree many other players could go on the list (ie. Tramon Williams, Kyle Williams, etc), but we don't know the factors that went into the list. Take all lists with a grain of salt.

Gimmick or not, you are watching, discussing, and giving it thought on each selection. Anything with rankings is by nature, opinionated and a 'gimmick' in one way or another. It isn't qualitative information. Realistically, even taking qualitative statistics of players into account, those can be viewed in so many ways, it again comes down to opinions.....

I'll sit and enjoy and discuss, after all, that is the point. Saying it isn't accurate is again just an opinion.

nikkayeah
05-14-2011, 12:29 AM
omg vernon davis is too low im disgusted

BigBanger
05-15-2011, 11:54 PM
4 steelers in the top 100 is good. i personally think woodley is too high and if i was voting for steelers its would be ben, troy, harrison and pouncey...but 4 is good.
Woodley too high? I think that was about the perfect ranking for him, he may be a touch low if anything.

Lawrence Timmons is going to be a colossal snub. He's easily ahead of Woodley IMO and one of the best ILBs in the game. I think ILB in general will get devalued, but Timmons is a legit Top 60 player.

Casey Hampton is completely ignored by fans, media and apparently the players. No other DT / NT in the NFL has been the main anchor of a run defense that ranks in the Top 3 in the NFL on a yearly basis for the past decade.

I think the Steelers have 6 solid players that should be (easily) in the Top 100:

Troy Polamalu (Top 10)
James Harrison (Top 20)
Ben Roethlisberger (Top 25)
Lawrence Timmons (Top 50)
Casey Hampton (Top 60)
LaMarr Woodley (Top 75)

18 WRs in the Top 100? That seems a bit ridiculous. And Greg Jennings is ranked 14th? Wow.


100. D. McNabb Redskins, QB
99. C. Clifton Packers, OT
98. D. McFadden Raiders, RB
97. S. Phillips Chargers, DE
96. N. Collins Packers, S
95. J. Beason Panthers, LB
94. F. Gore 49ers, RB
93. E. Berry Chiefs, S
92. L. Briggs Bears, LB
91. T. Owens Bengals, WR
90. J. Flacco Ravens, QB

89. A. Wilson Cardinals, S
88. V. Davis 49ers, TE
87. J. Gross Panthers, OT
86. J. Freeman Buccaneers, QB
85. J. Babin Titans, DE
84. J. Cribbs Browns, QB
83. M. Williams Buccaneers, WR
82. L. Woodley Steelers, LB
81. B. Raji Packers, DT



80. J. Allen, Vikings, DE
79. D. Ferguson, Jets, OT
78. D. Clark, Colts, TE
77. C. Snee, Giants, G
76. S. Holmes, Jets, WR
75. J. Ratliff, Cowboys, DE
74. G. Jennings, Packers, WR
73. T. Cole, Eagles, DE
72. T. Romo, Cowboys, QB
71. M. Williams, Texans, DE


Jared Allen is coming off a down year with 11 sacks. He's notched at least 14.5 sacks in three straight years prior to this past season. Great against the run... and he's 80th? He's a top 3 DE. Should be Top 30 or 40 at the worst.



No, he has played crappy in every playoff game besides the Kansas City game.
I agree. I would leave Flacco off. Until he starts elevating his team and beating a team he isn't favored to win, then he can go in the completely average QB category who plays like dog **** in the post season. The guy completed 4 passes against NE two years ago and THEY STILL WON with a passer rating of 10... that's right T-E-N. That is a team winning in spite of it's QB. Then he follows that up with a 189 yard performance with 2 INTs and a QB rating in the 40s. In 7 playoff games Flacco has had a QB rating under 60 4 times. One other game? QB rating of 61. 5 out of 7 games he's been about as bad as a QB can be in the playoffs. With 8 turnovers in those 5 games. He's had 4 TDs and 7 INTs in 7 playoff games. How any QB can be that dreadful in the playoffs and still be respected... it's beyond me.

I like how the NFLN guys were saying Flacco should be higher than Freeman because he's been to the playoffs and "that's the measure of a great QB." Forget about Freeman being on a far less talented team and the fact that he's only in his second year. Freeman was better than Flacco this year and if you compare their sophomore seasons, Freeman blows Flacco out of the water.

K Train
05-16-2011, 09:20 AM
Woodley too high? I think that was about the perfect ranking for him, he may be a touch low if anything.

Lawrence Timmons is going to be a colossal snub. He's easily ahead of Woodley IMO and one of the best ILBs in the game. I think ILB in general will get devalued, but Timmons is a legit Top 60 player.

Casey Hampton is completely ignored by fans, media and apparently the players. No other DT / NT in the NFL has been the main anchor of a run defense that ranks in the Top 3 in the NFL on a yearly basis for the past decade.

I think the Steelers have 6 solid players that should be (easily) in the Top 100:

Troy Polamalu (Top 10)
James Harrison (Top 20)
Ben Roethlisberger (Top 25)
Lawrence Timmons (Top 50)
Casey Hampton (Top 60)
LaMarr Woodley



at this point in his career casey is playing admirably but hes not a top 100 player and not a top 5 NT anymore...i thought he was done like 3 years ago when he couldnt get his weight under control but he has really had a good final surge late in his career...hes a 2 down player at best at this point though.

i love timmons, i understand why he was snubbed but after this year i think he'll make some noise in rankings, this was really his first year of being good as MLB, he added 15 pounds and just became a hammer against the run.

woodley is too notorious for starting the season pathetically slow, he often looks over weight in the first half of the year and can be caught playing patty cake with RTs too often unless its the playoffs. the dude can be unblockable, or he can be completely inconsistent...id love a dominant year from him.

i would expect pouncey to build off his promising rookie year and be a top player as an interior oline guy this year, people love to hate on him for not being great last year but he really was very good and is so young still. hes 10x the center mahan and hartwig were since hartings retired

BloodBrother
05-16-2011, 09:39 AM
Glazer was livid with the list last night lol. Agreed that Allen was waaay too low. I hate the guy, but he's damn good. There is no way Jennings isn't at least a top 10 WR, so having 14 ahead of him is hilarious. I want to see who the players have as the top 10. Brady, Manning, Ray Lewis, Polamalu and AP I'd think would be in there

Splat
05-16-2011, 12:51 PM
Surprised by both Jared Allen and Greg Jennings I didn't expect to see either this soon.

RCAChainGang
05-19-2011, 01:42 AM
Maybe I'm just a homer, but does Clark seem a little low to you guys?

TACKLE
05-19-2011, 02:20 AM
Maybe I'm just a homer, but does Clark seem a little low to you guys?

No he does not.

BaLLiN
05-19-2011, 09:49 AM
Just thinking, is there any possibility that Hakeem Nicks and Mario Manningham are on this list? With Greg Jennings at 14 it seems very unlikely...

AntoinCD
05-19-2011, 11:18 AM
Just thinking, is there any possibility that Hakeem Nicks and Mario Manningham are on this list? With Greg Jennings at 14 it seems very unlikely...

Mario Manningham??? Really? Nicks may be a possibility but I'd still be surprised.

Crazy_Chris
05-20-2011, 07:32 AM
Just thinking, is there any possibility that Hakeem Nicks and Mario Manningham are on this list? With Greg Jennings at 14 it seems very unlikely...

Considering how many WRs are in the top 100 I would think that Hakeem Nicks should be somewhere on the list.

Damix
05-31-2011, 05:28 PM
Considering how many WRs are in the top 100 I would think that Hakeem Nicks should be somewhere on the list.

According to Ralph V, Nicks is not on the list.

Mike Williams (TB) was 83, had less catches, yards and the same number of touchdowns in 3 more games then Nicks.

Nicks > Williams.

Splat
05-31-2011, 06:21 PM
Williams was a rookie that should come in to play in the discussion.

On a side note loved seeing Tamba Hali on the list but they kept calling him a DE and had him listed as a DE but he plays OLB has for the last two years.

Ness
05-31-2011, 08:10 PM
What do folks think of Brandon Lloyd being where he is on the list?

Splat
05-31-2011, 08:15 PM
Well it's top players of last season and dude was flat out in beast mode last season so I don't have a problem with it.

EricCartmann
05-31-2011, 08:58 PM
Well it's top players of last season and dude was flat out in beast mode last season so I don't have a problem with it.

It's the projection for this season, but I guess because of the monster year he had last year, his peers seem to think he will continue it this season. Anytime you are #1 in Yards, that commands respect.

Weird how he came out of nowhere to be one of the most dominant. After looking at his numbers, and highlights of him, I guess his position is justified. Was it a fluke? I don't think so. I guess he just needed a halfway decent QB.

bucfan12
05-31-2011, 09:29 PM
Heres a question:

If Aquib Talib wasn't a dimwit and didn't get himself in a situation where he's most likely going to jail for 2 years and out of the league, where would he fall with in the top 100 players?

jack1077
06-01-2011, 05:30 AM
Tramon Williams won't make the list either, seeing as how they said 7 Packers made it and already they've had 3 on so far with Clifton at #99, Nick Collins at #96 and B.J. Raji at #81. The other 4 are clearly going to be Rodgers, Matthews, Jennings and Woodson. Sure, last season was Williams breakout year but come on? The list is top players of 2011. He should be on it over Clifton IMO but whatever

the players compiled this list and we see every year how they are with their pro bowl voting

agreed with others that the Bills should have had Kyle Williams on the list as well

What's crazier is where Jennings is on the list. He is a top 5 WR in the NFL, not a top 15.

phlysac
06-01-2011, 05:17 PM
Heres a question:

If Aquib Talib wasn't a dimwit and didn't get himself in a situation where he's most likely going to jail for 2 years and out of the league, where would he fall with in the top 100 players?

I don't think the players would consider his off-the-field issues as much as the media would.

Crazy_Chris
06-02-2011, 12:09 PM
According to Ralph V, Nicks is not on the list.

Mike Williams (TB) was 83, had less catches, yards and the same number of touchdowns in 3 more games then Nicks.

Nicks > Williams.

That is a big snub, Hakeem Nicks when healthy was producing at a extremely high level.

Here is an update of the list for anyone who hasn't seen it

51.Ndamukong Suh
52.Matt Ryan
53.Marques Colston
54.Asante Samuel
55.Carl Nicks
56.Ray Rice
57.Andre Gurode
58.BRandon Lloyd
59.Jeff Saturday
60.Justin Tuck
61.Brandon Marshall
62.Jerod Mayo
63.Cameron wake
64.Tamba Hali
65.Vonta Leach
66.Richard Seymour
67.Brian Waters
68.Antrell Rolle
69.John Abraham
70.Miles Austin


71.Mario Williams
72.TOny Romo
73.Trent Cole
74.Greg Jennings
75.Jay Ratliff
76.Santonio Holmes
77.Chris Snee
78.Dallas Clark
79.D'brickshaw Ferguson
80.Jared Allen
81.BJ Raji
82.Lamarr Woodley
83.Mike Williams
84.Josh Cribbs
85.Jason Babin
86.Josh Freeman
87.Jordan Gross
88.Vernon Davis
89.Adrian Wilson
90.Joe Flacco
91.Terrel OWens
92.Lance Briggs
93.Eric Berry
94.Frank Gore
95.Jon Beason
96.Nick Collins
97.Shaun Phillips
98.Darren McFadden
99.Chad Clifton
100.Donovan McNAbb

PACKmanN
06-02-2011, 10:01 PM
for a FB in Vonta Leach that just blocks guys and catches a low amount of catches. He is sure low on the list.

Splat
06-02-2011, 10:04 PM
Suh at #51 as a rookie is pretty freaking impressive and much deserved.

gpngc
06-02-2011, 10:06 PM
for a FB in Vonta Leach that just blocks guys and catches a low amount of catches. He is sure low on the list.

As fans, we don't feel the pop he delivers on every single play.

The defensive players who voted - they do.

He was huge for Foster last year and Slaton when he was a rookie.

vikes_28
06-03-2011, 02:59 AM
This list is ****. How can there be 6 DE's above Jared Allen? No homer, but he's way better than that.

vidae
06-03-2011, 10:33 AM
A case could be made for pretty much every player on this list so far except one: Tony Romo. I can't believe he was 72nd when he played what, 6 games? It's pretty stupid. It's supposed to be the top 100 of last season, not of a career, and the panelists on the reaction show don't seem to get it. All they talk about is career, not season.

The rest of the list is okay though.

edit: McNabb probably shouldn't be on this list either, but whatcha gunna do?

TACKLE
06-03-2011, 10:41 AM
A case could be made for pretty much every player on this list so far except one: Tony Romo. I can't believe he was 72nd when he played what, 6 games? It's pretty stupid. It's supposed to be the top 100 of last season, not of a career, and the panelists on the reaction show don't seem to get it. All they talk about is career, not season.

The rest of the list is okay though.

edit: McNabb probably shouldn't be on this list either, but whatcha gunna do?

That's not quite correct sir. The list is supposed to be the Top 100 players of 2011 so in theory there is a bit of a projection.

Splat
06-03-2011, 11:10 AM
A case could be made for pretty much every player on this list so far except one: Tony Romo. I can't believe he was 72nd when he played what, 6 games? It's pretty stupid. It's supposed to be the top 100 of last season, not of a career, and the panelists on the reaction show don't seem to get it. All they talk about is career, not season.

The rest of the list is okay though.

edit: McNabb probably shouldn't be on this list either, but whatcha gunna do?

I have stopped watching the reaction show they just piss me off.

gpngc
06-03-2011, 11:26 AM
That's not quite correct sir. The list is supposed to be the Top 100 players of 2011 so in theory there is a bit of a projection.

Exactly. And body of work comes into play as well. How much, they let the players decide. I think what they were trying to capture was the age-old "who's the best _____?" question and to do that you have to take into account present, past, and future performance. Because of this, Romo and McNabb do have cases.

I agree that Romo @ 72 is a little high though.

Jughead10
06-03-2011, 01:10 PM
Exactly. And body of work comes into play as well. How much, they let the players decide. I think what they were trying to capture was the age-old "who's the best _____?" question and to do that you have to take into account present, past, and future performance. Because of this, Romo and McNabb do have cases.

I agree that Romo @ 72 is a little high though.

How is Lloyd on this list at all then? It seems like they are heavy on 2010 in some instance and not on others. Leave anything to the players, and they will surely mess it up.

EricCartmann
06-03-2011, 03:22 PM
That is a big snub, Hakeem Nicks when healthy was producing at a extremely high level.


Wow Nicks did not make it? To me he is a Top 5. He always seem to get open, and for the times he does not, he still makes the catches. I would rank him right up there with Fitz and AJ, and would also take him over Megatron and Reggie Wayne.

EricCartmann
06-03-2011, 03:29 PM
How is Lloyd on this list at all then? It seems like they are heavy on 2010 in some instance and not on others. Leave anything to the players, and they will surely mess it up.

It's 2011 projections. The other players seem to think Lloyd will repeat his numbers and be #58 best by years end.

Jughead10
06-03-2011, 03:33 PM
It's 2011 projections. The other players seem to think Lloyd will repeat his numbers and be #58 best by years end.

I guess this is really a what have you done for me lately league in the players eyes then. 1 great year out 8 and they expect him to repeat it at 30 years old?

Splat
06-03-2011, 03:35 PM
Wow Nicks did not make it? To me he is a Top 5. He always seem to get open, and for the times he does not, he still makes the catches. I would rank him right up there with Fitz and AJ, and would also take him over Megatron and Reggie Wayne.

Nicks is not a top 5 WR and taking him over Calvin Johnson is laughable.

Ness
06-03-2011, 03:44 PM
I guess this is really a what have you done for me lately league in the players eyes then. 1 great year out 8 and they expect him to repeat it at 30 years old?

He had a great season in 2010. The list is about the projections going into 2011. If he can do it once, he can do it again. Not that I expect him to, but at this point Lloyd has the benefit of the doubt because of what he did in 2010.

EricCartmann
06-03-2011, 04:17 PM
Nicks is not a top 5 WR and taking him over Calvin Johnson is laughable.

Most 2011 WR FF rankings I have seen of Nicks is between 5-8. So that means he is top 5 in some peoples books.

I might have reached a little when I said I would take Nicks over Megatron, but to me it's not that clear cut that CJ is better, or at least not yet. They both put up roughly the same numbers, but to me Nicks just seems the more complete player, and a better go to guy when you must have that completion.

Megatron is a stud, but to me is a little bit of a disappointment. His numbers are solid, but with the speed and talent he has, I expect league leading Jerry Rice, Art Monk, or Michael Irvin type numbers (100+ receptions, 1500+ yards), and these guys were nowhere near the "talent" that CJ is. CJ completed 4 years so I thought he would definitely be a league leader by now.

Nicks has already exceeded my expectations, and because he has shown to be good in traffic, and can catch when covered, his numbers will never go down.

Nalej
06-03-2011, 04:24 PM
CJ could be that type of guy if he ever got consistant QB play.
He played only a few games with the actual starter and put up the majority of his numbers with backups. Multiple scrubs.
Nicks gets the benefit of playing with an above avg QB who can stay healthy.
There's a lot to be said about chemistry between a QB and a WR.

With that said, I think Nicks is a stud and will be a top 10 WR in no time
but skill level alone- I don't think he compares to H.Nicks.
That's not a knock on him though since I think Megatron is on his own universe when it comes to God given talent/abilities/physical attributes.

MaxV
06-03-2011, 04:32 PM
Jeff Saturday is NOT a top 100 NFL player for 2011.

He sucked last year and probably should be released. He's done.

That's the worst selection so far. That was totally based on reputation rather then on-field performance.

Splat
06-03-2011, 07:14 PM
Most 2011 WR FF rankings I have seen of Nicks is between 5-8. So that means he is top 5 in some peoples books.

Not in any order but I would take all of these guys over Nicks and not lose any sleep over the decision.

Andre Johnson
Larry Fitzgerald
Calvin Johnson
Roddy White
Greg Jennings
Calvin Johnson
Dwayne Bowe

And maybe a few more if I really thought it over.

MI_Buckeye
06-03-2011, 10:47 PM
CJ could be that type of guy if he ever got consistant QB play.
He played only a few games with the actual starter and put up the majority of his numbers with backups. Multiple scrubs.
Nicks gets the benefit of playing with an above avg QB who can stay healthy.
There's a lot to be said about chemistry between a QB and a WR.

With that said, I think Nicks is a stud and will be a top 10 WR in no time
but skill level alone- I don't think he compares to H.Nicks.
That's not a knock on him though since I think Megatron is on his own universe when it comes to God given talent/abilities/physical attributes.

Calvin has been overrated by everybody since he came into the league. He is magnificently inconsistent and wilts against the better cover corners in the league. Look at his numbers game-by-game, they are all over the place including way too many 1, 2 and 3 catch outings. He is so overrated, nobody realizes he's overrated.

MI_Buckeye
06-03-2011, 10:50 PM
King Suh at 51 is a joke. I know career production counts for something, but we all know he'll be a top ten lock sooner rather than later. Honestly, how many of the top 50, when all is said and done, would you rather have for the upcoming season than Ndamukong Suh?

MI_Buckeye
06-03-2011, 10:55 PM
It's 2011 projections. The other players seem to think Lloyd will repeat his numbers and be #58 best by years end.

Ballots were submitted individually, and I think each player filled out their ballot on their own criteria. Some valued the career, some valued the here-and-now and some projected a player's projected impact in the future.

EricCartmann
06-04-2011, 01:20 AM
Not in any order but I would take all of these guys over Nicks and not lose any sleep over the decision.

Andre Johnson
Larry Fitzgerald
Calvin Johnson
Roddy White
Greg Jennings
Calvin Johnson
Dwayne Bowe

And maybe a few more if I really thought it over.

You listed Calvin Johnson twice, are you saying he's that good? Plays as good as 2 guys? I would rank White up there too, but even he is questionably better than Nicks.

I remember Bowe going through a stretch where he only got 3 receptions in 3 games.

Jennings makes a good argument for being top 5, but I don't see him making the tough catches in coverage like Nicks does. Not saying I would rank Nicks above Jennings either because Jennings has one thing better than Nicks, and that is the ability to get behind the secondary, and he is more elusive. So it's a wash.

EricCartmann
06-04-2011, 01:23 AM
Calvin has been overrated by everybody since he came into the league. He is magnificently inconsistent and wilts against the better cover corners in the league. Look at his numbers game-by-game, they are all over the place including way too many 1, 2 and 3 catch outings. He is so overrated, nobody realizes he's overrated.

I agree, that's why I would not consider it "laughable" to rank Nicks above CJ. Nicks plays "bigger" than he is, CJ plays "smaller".

EricCartmann
06-04-2011, 01:24 AM
Ballots were submitted individually, and I think each player filled out their ballot on their own criteria. Some valued the career, some valued the here-and-now and some projected a player's projected impact in the future.

That is correct, but the final requirement is how do you think the players will do in 2011 (no matter what criteria you use).

EricCartmann
06-04-2011, 01:29 AM
King Suh at 51 is a joke. I know career production counts for something, but we all know he'll be a top ten lock sooner rather than later. Honestly, how many of the top 50, when all is said and done, would you rather have for the upcoming season than Ndamukong Suh?

On the NFL network they said no one analyzes films more than the players. The mentioned how Suh still has some holes in his game that might or might not be exploited. Even if he does not improve, and put up the same performance as last year, he will jump at least 10 spots. However, I agree with you in that, when it is all said and done, he will be up there. I doubt top 10, to me those spots are reserved for one-on-one-corner, a RB, or QB.

Splat
06-04-2011, 08:24 AM
I remember Bowe going through a stretch where he only got 3 receptions in 3 games.

I remember him leading the league in receiving TD's.

BRAVEHEART
06-04-2011, 08:46 AM
Did everybody forget that Calvin Johnson is the only offensive threat on the lions, and the team plays with a revolving door situation at QB?

put Calvin on the Giants, there'd be no argument. **** is silly, plain old silly.

bored of education
06-04-2011, 10:51 AM
You listed Calvin Johnson twice, are you saying he's that good? Plays as good as 2 guys? I would rank White up there too, but even he is questionably better than Nicks.

I remember Bowe going through a stretch where he only got 3 receptions in 3 games.

Jennings makes a good argument for being top 5, but I don't see him making the tough catches in coverage like Nicks does. Not saying I would rank Nicks above Jennings either because Jennings has one thing better than Nicks, and that is the ability to get behind the secondary, and he is more elusive. So it's a wash.

I dont have Bowe in the top 5 yet, he needs to replicate last years performance. Bowe was part of a much weaker offense passing wise than most receivers in the top 10 in TDS, and yards. The only really bad game Bowe had was the 2nd game vs. Denver where Champ Bailey probably played one of his top 10 best games ever. The following week Bowe had Croyle throwing to him. Not making excuses for Bowe, but those two weeks where he accumulated 1 catch 3 yards was a tough stretch. You can focus on a menial 3 game stretch..but I would like to turn my focus to the previous 7 week stretch. 49 catches, 733 yards, 13 TDs. Those numbers in a 10 game stretch alone are beastly. So dont give me this he had a 3 game stretch where he did nothing. He got blanketed by one of the greatest of all time at his position, who played one of his best games ever. The next week he had a Qb who should be bagging groceries throwing the ball to him.

Splat
06-04-2011, 10:59 AM
I don't have Bowe top five either but I would take him over Nicks.

Caulibflower
06-04-2011, 02:17 PM
Why the pilejumping on Nicks? Nicks makes some crazy catches in coverage, and he's the best run-after-catch receiver being talked about on this page.

Splat
06-04-2011, 02:21 PM
Why the pilejumping on Nicks? Nicks makes some crazy catches in coverage, and he's the best run-after-catch receiver being talked about on this page.

He is a good WR no one is say other wise but to put him up there with Fitz,AJ and Calvin Johnson as EC did is to much.

EricCartmann
06-05-2011, 02:15 AM
He is a good WR no one is say other wise but to put him up there with Fitz,AJ and Calvin Johnson as EC did is to much.

His numbers are comparable to CJ, so tell me how is it too much? Just because CJ is a freak of nature does not automatically put him in the top 5. Shaq was a freak of nature too, but I never had him on my top WR list ever.

falloutboy14
06-05-2011, 08:48 AM
Statistically, Matt Schaub had a comparable season to Tom Brady. To suggest that Schaub is on par with Brady using statistics alone without examining their play is silly.

Nicks is a very good wide-receiver, but he simply doesn't pass the eye-ball test to be classified as a super star like some of the above mentioned.

vidae
06-05-2011, 09:02 AM
I can't believe this is even an argument. Nicks doesn't belong anywhere near a top 5 WR list.

Malaka
06-05-2011, 10:27 AM
Right now Nicks is definitely not a top 5 WR. Nicks is just way too inconsistent, and drops too many balls even though he has the biggest hands in the league. However, he is a game changer. Nicks has the potential to be the receiver in the league because whenever he catches the ball he is a threat to pick up 10-20 more yards every time; he is just so strong he completely out muscles defensive backs, and because of that he doesn't need the lazing speed.

I guess I would Nicks in the top 10, but I am not so sure. It's pretty close. One thing that is for certain, however, is that in several years (maybe a good 3 or 4, at the maximum) when Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, and Roddy White slowly pass their primes I think we'll be seeing the likes of Nicks, Dez Bryant, Calvin Johnson, and Dwayne Bowe without a doubt in the top 5.

EricCartmann
06-05-2011, 01:28 PM
Did everybody forget that Calvin Johnson is the only offensive threat on the lions, and the team plays with a revolving door situation at QB?

put Calvin on the Giants, there'd be no argument. **** is silly, plain old silly.

Lions got almost 4000 yards passing from all their QB's. And finished the year with only 75 passing yards less than the Giants. So how would CJ be that much better on the Giants?

One could even justifiably argue that if CJ were to be on the Giants, his numbers might even go down due to the fact that the Giants might figure out that Steve Smith and Mario Manningham are better options.

Despite playing in 3 less games and being targeted 10 less times than CJ, Nicks still ended the year with more more receptions. =)

Nicks has the world thinking he is big and powerful but he is not really a big guy either, he just plays big. CJ is about 4" taller and 20 lbs heavier, but for some reason does not play "big" like Nicks. Nicks is hard to bring down, CJ plays like a domino at time.

EricCartmann
06-05-2011, 01:35 PM
I can't believe this is even an argument. Nicks doesn't belong anywhere near a top 5 WR list.

I don't agree, I think he makes a good argument for it.

EricCartmann
06-05-2011, 01:36 PM
Statistically, Matt Schaub had a comparable season to Tom Brady. To suggest that Schaub is on par with Brady using statistics alone without examining their play is silly.

Nicks is a very good wide-receiver, but he simply doesn't pass the eye-ball test to be classified as a super star like some of the above mentioned.

What grading criteria do you want to use? I'll be happy to listen. How is Nicks not a super star using YOUR criteria?

EricCartmann
06-05-2011, 02:41 PM
In the real world, Nicks is already a top 5 WR.

I can completely understand why you guys do not have Nicks in your top 5, or even your top 10, because there are a lot of good receivers in the league, and a lot of guys make a good case of why they should be among the top5 or top10. Andre Johnson, Larry Fitz, Roddy White, Brandon Lloyd, Reggie Wayne, Greg Jennings, Vincent Jackson, Dwayne Bowe, Marquis Colston, Greg Jennings, DeSean Jackson, Hakeem Nicks, etc, are all deserving.

However, NOT even CONSIDERING Nicks for your top5 or top10 list is quite laughable. At the very least, Nicks should be CONSIDERED! In a way though I can understand why some of you would not even CONSIDER him on your list, because most people are just stubborn fools set in their ways and not willing to be open to new Revolutionary ideas. That's why I am here, to help you guys see the light, I believe forward thinkers such as myself, should share our knowledge and help blind people to see the light =)

What is also quite laughable, is Nicks did not make the NFL top 100 players of 2011, so that means his peers did not even realize his talents. Even if you or the NFL-players do not have Nicks in your top10 list, at least the real world does.
Last year Nicks was top5 in the following categories:
- yards per game
- touchdowns per game
- receptions per game
- plays of twenty+ yards

Even more impressive is Nicks was the #1 WR in Fantasy Points per game last year. Even though Nicks only played in 13 games (and was only about 50% in 3 more games), he still managed to put up great numbers and finish 8th overall (non PPR scoring).

SO IN CONCLUSION: IN THE REAL WORLD NICKS IS ALREADY A TOP 5 WR.

phlysac
06-05-2011, 03:50 PM
It is rare when using Fantasy statistics will benefit your argument. Especially when your argument has "In the real world" in its title and conclusion.

EricCartmann
06-05-2011, 03:59 PM
It is rare when using Fantasy statistics will benefit your argument. Especially when your argument has "In the real world" in its title and conclusion.

Caught! Like a good trapper I set up the trap just waiting for someone to take the bait, and sure enough it was you! haha

How are fantasy stats not real world? The Teams are "Fantasy" but the stats are very real my friend and buddy.

Top 5 in Fantasy (as well as the real world for the following categories):
- yards per game
- touchdowns per game
- receptions per game
- plays of twenty+ yards

King Carls 5 Year Plan
06-05-2011, 11:12 PM
One could even justifiably argue that if CJ were to be on the Giants, his numbers might even go down due to the fact that the Giants might figure out that Steve Smith and Mario Manningham are better options.

ummm.... no, just no. this is just outlandish homer talk here. you might have made some good points, but now you've gone to far. Manningham and Smith are batter than Megatron?!? seriously, do you really even believe that? CJ vs Nicks, i can see an argument. i may not think Nicks is as good as you do, but time will tell. no big deal. Manningham and Smith are better options for Manning than CJ? HELL NO!

prock
06-05-2011, 11:36 PM
Caught! Like a good trapper I set up the trap just waiting for someone to take the bait, and sure enough it was you! haha

How are fantasy stats not real world? The Teams are "Fantasy" but the stats are very real my friend and buddy.

Top 5 in Fantasy (as well as the real world for the following categories):
- yards per game
- touchdowns per game
- receptions per game
- plays of twenty+ yards

This is a new breed of troll....

prock
06-05-2011, 11:39 PM
His numbers are comparable to CJ, so tell me how is it too much? Just because CJ is a freak of nature does not automatically put him in the top 5. Shaq was a freak of nature too, but I never had him on my top WR list ever.

Uhhh what?

Caulibflower
06-05-2011, 11:42 PM
ummm.... no, just no. this is just outlandish homer talk here. you might have made some good points, but now you've gone to far. Manningham and Smith are batter than Megatron?!?


He didn't even sort of say that. The idea is that CJ has more chances to augment his stats because he is so much better than the rest of the Lion's receiving corps. The Giant's group is one of the best and deepest in the NFL.

EricCartmann
06-06-2011, 01:19 AM
ummm.... no, just no. this is just outlandish homer talk here. you might have made some good points, but now you've gone to far. Manningham and Smith are batter than Megatron?!? seriously, do you really even believe that? CJ vs Nicks, i can see an argument. i may not think Nicks is as good as you do, but time will tell. no big deal. Manningham and Smith are better options for Manning than CJ? HELL NO!

I am not saying Manningham or Smith are as good as CJ.

What I am trying to say is with Smith and Manningham in the lineup, CJ would not get as many opportunities as he does now. I am surprised that Nicks can even get the numbers he does with all the weapons the Giants have. The thing with Nicks is that he runs precise routes and can catch in traffic, just like Michael Irvin or Jerry Rice. Nicks is a true first option WR.

Everyone should stop their man love with CJ, stop thinking about CJ's size, speed, and draft status and judge him by what he has done on the field. Megatron is a very capable receiver, but he is NOT a clear cut top 5. His numbers show that he is clearly top-10 but not top 5. In my opinion #4-10 is up in the air.

I rank AJ, Fitz 1 and 2 because of their history, and consistency through the years. I have Roddy White a very close #3. For 2011, I believe Nicks may pass them all.

EricCartmann
06-06-2011, 01:21 AM
This is a new breed of troll....

There is a big difference between a trapper and a troll. Trolls play with peoples emotions and tries to get a reaction, any reaction, positive or negative.

A trapper on the other hand, knows how all you "experts" are going to respond and just prepared an answer.

EricCartmann
06-06-2011, 01:24 AM
Uhhh what?

Nicks numbers are comparable to CJ. So please explain it to me how comparing Nicks to CJ is "too much".

Just because CJ is a freak of nature does not automatically put him in the top 5. Shaq was a freak of nature too, but I never had him on my top WR list ever.

Ness
06-06-2011, 01:36 AM
Nicks has the potential to be a top five receiver in the NFL. Definitely plays like one. Just doesn't have the stats to back him up at this point in time.

TimD
06-06-2011, 07:10 AM
i began reading this thread excited to post my opinions about the list... then i got to the ridiculous nicks over CJ argument

really? like for realsy reals?

MhV2DZPtIoo

you must have forgotten how good megatron is...

nepg
06-06-2011, 07:16 AM
It'd take a lot longer than 4:29 to show all of Nicks' NFL catches.

RCAChainGang
06-06-2011, 09:01 AM
Yeah maybe we should just change this thread to the CJ versus Nicks argument.

Nicks is a great receiver, but considering CJ's situation in Detroit I can't really rely on a statistical argument. If you give CJ a consistent QB that is decent he would be an easy top 5 WR. I think he already is because most people see it this way. Football is a team sport so statistics aren't full-proof. If you don't have a teammate that can put the ball where it is supposed to be when it is supposed to be then your numbers will suffer.

Both great receivers though. I just think this argument has gotten a little out of hand.

no bare feet
06-06-2011, 11:48 AM
I hate playing the put X player on Y teams to compare to player W.

But put CJ on the G-Men, holy jesus what could happen

TimD
06-06-2011, 12:22 PM
It'd take a lot longer than 4:29 to show all of Nicks' NFL catches.

and it wouldnt take longer to show CJs???

i havent really been in this argument, but i just dont see how anyone can make the claim that Nicks is better than CJ. I mean the guy is doubled all game long and still manages to do specular things.. with (mostly) no name QBs throwing to him behind an awful o-line

Nalej
06-06-2011, 12:42 PM
and it wouldnt take longer to show CJs???


I lol'd and thought the same thing.

prock
06-06-2011, 01:24 PM
Nicks numbers are comparable to CJ. So please explain it to me how comparing Nicks to CJ is "too much".

Just because CJ is a freak of nature does not automatically put him in the top 5. Shaq was a freak of nature too, but I never had him on my top WR list ever.

Shaq wasn't a receiver. Nicks is find to compare to CJ, but having comparable numbers one year isn't enough to justify it. You compared Steve Smith and Mario Manningham to CJ lol. The Lions may have had just as many passing yards as the Giants, but there is an important factor you are ignoring: chemistry with a quarterback. When your quarterback is changing every single week, it is pretty difficult as a wide receiver.

killxswitch
06-06-2011, 02:19 PM
Nicks and Megatron are two of my favorite NFL receivers so I will not choose a side. Instead I will say the two situations are massively different and call it a no-contest.

Nalej
06-06-2011, 03:22 PM
I'm done with that convo.

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4696783/champ-with-high-praise-for-mccourty

^^^

"I'll tell you what, a guy that I really like, and I watched in the later part of the year was Devin McCourty. He's tough, challenging, and to get to meet him at the Pro Bowl this past year, I like the feel of him. I think he's going to be a great corner. He's playing in a great defense, a great system, so I expect to see big things from him."

Love to see the Champ love.

Also, I'm pretty surprised the players voted Big Ben #41.
I guess I thought he'd be a bit higher due to his two rings.

The Great Jonathan Vilma
06-06-2011, 05:09 PM
I'm a huge Vilma fan and even I am getting shocked at how high he keeps climbing. Correct me if i'm wrong, but he hasn't been announced yet right? I've seen a few foreshadows (like # of Players from 'The U') that have indicated he is on the list, so i'm assuming he is still to come.

If this is true, i am truely happy that the world see's the true value of this stud!

phlysac
06-06-2011, 06:54 PM
Caught! Like a good trapper I set up the trap just waiting for someone to take the bait, and sure enough it was you! haha

How are fantasy stats not real world? The Teams are "Fantasy" but the stats are very real my friend and buddy.

Top 5 in Fantasy (as well as the real world for the following categories):
- yards per game
- touchdowns per game
- receptions per game
- plays of twenty+ yards

I'm not even trying to be really serious in my response to your "trapper" ability. Hooray. U B Good Trapper.

My point was that it's tough to win an argument using Fantasy statistics. I'm not even arguing your Nicks points. Just pointing out that using Fantasy stats won't help. Yes, statistics are achieved in"the real world" but they (especially fantasy stats) aren't a depiction of ability.

I absolutely love Hakeem Nicks. I think he likely will become an elite receiver. He showed flashes of such play. However, consistency is required for MY opinion of elite (mine, not necessarily everyones.)

I was actually supporting you but your little game showed me your nature and distinguished you clearly.

But once again, Congratulations. I got you a hat, which I'm sure you'll love since I am your "friend" and "buddy."

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/457/tailcap.jpg

DoughBoy
06-06-2011, 07:57 PM
Where do you guys think Knowshon makes his appearance in the the top 50?

Nalej
06-06-2011, 08:00 PM
Right between Chris Johnson and Adrian Peterson.
They're the unanimous #1 and #3 (You choose their ranking)
but Knowshon is hands down #2

Just ask, njx

EricCartmann
06-06-2011, 10:58 PM
Shaq wasn't a receiver. Nicks is find to compare to CJ, but having comparable numbers one year isn't enough to justify it. You compared Steve Smith and Mario Manningham to CJ lol. The Lions may have had just as many passing yards as the Giants, but there is an important factor you are ignoring: chemistry with a quarterback. When your quarterback is changing every single week, it is pretty difficult as a wide receiver.

Show me where I compared Steve Smith and Manningham to CJ?

The "lesser" guy has 1.5 seasons, the "more superior" guy has like 3.8 seasons. yet they both put up the same numbers last year.

Like I said, Nicks season might be flukey, but I just highly doubt. Any guy that can catch the ball in traffic and get YAC is not flukey (in my book, YMMV).

Also if you are a great receiver, it will not matter who the QB is. Rice made Kemp, Grbac, and Bono look like studs, and Rice was no where near the "freak of nature" that your boyfriend CJ is.

EricCartmann
06-06-2011, 11:01 PM
seriously? fantasy numbers? do we have to have this stats argument in every single thread? i guess eli manning was one of the best qbs in the league. unless you're playing in an int heavy league. how much do they count for in real life again? and i'd certainly take carson palmer over josh freeman. unless it was a keeper league. wait, how many guys do we get to keep? are passing tds 4 or 6?

terrible, terrible argument. please stop reading box scores, average yahoo! user.

They should revoke your head moderator title. You do not know fantasy numbers are real numbers?

Eli finished 11th in Fantasy points. Do you think he should be lower? higher? Tell me how he is not worth of the 11th spot?

EricCartmann
06-06-2011, 11:06 PM
I'm not even trying to be really serious in my response to your "trapper" ability. Hooray. U B Good Trapper.

My point was that it's tough to win an argument using Fantasy statistics. I'm not even arguing your Nicks points. Just pointing out that using Fantasy stats won't help. Yes, statistics are achieved in"the real world" but they (especially fantasy stats) aren't a depiction of ability.

I absolutely love Hakeem Nicks. I think he likely will become an elite receiver. He showed flashes of such play. However, consistency is required for MY opinion of elite (mine, not necessarily everyones.)

I was actually supporting you but your little game showed me your nature and distinguished you clearly.

But once again, Congratulations. I got you a hat, which I'm sure you'll love since I am your "friend" and "buddy."

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/457/tailcap.jpg

Nothing personal physl, you are cool in my book, we agreed on other stuff.. just not this time.. and like I said, it's not personal.

I am just saying that when someone tells me that Fantasy stats are not real? well I will have to disagree.. and when I do mention fantasy stats, I always know there will be someone that says "it's fantasy"... but tell me, how is TDs, yards, receptions, amount of plays of 20+ yards Fantasy? It is no coincidence that the top Fantasy players are also pro-bowlers.

No games here, we are cool... but I set up the trap for someone other than you, and I can't help it if my buddies fall for it. I will be doing them no favors by patronizing them ;-)

EricCartmann
06-06-2011, 11:09 PM
I did not mean to turn this into a CJ hater thread, I myself love CJ. It's just that I think Nicks will have the better year next year.

EricCartmann
06-06-2011, 11:30 PM
with what scoring? he finished first in my league's scoring, therefore, he must be the best.

well your league is whacked! Can you show me how the scoring works in your league?

gpngc
06-06-2011, 11:45 PM
Where do you guys think Knowshon makes his appearance in the the top 50?

This was such a funny post amidst the retardation.

ALL lists are subjective. Especially WR lists because NO other position is more dependent on others than WR. Among a million other factors. Here's my opinion on the matter:

1) Larry Fitzgerald
2) Andre Johnson
3) Calvin Johnson
4) Roddy White
5) Greg Jennings
6) Reggie Wayne
7) DeSean Jackson
8) Dwayne Bowe
9) Hakeem Nicks
10) Santonio Holmes
11) Brandon Marshall
12) Dez Bryant
13) Marques Colston
14) Percy Harvin
15) Mike Wallace
16) Miles Austin
17) Vincent Jackson
18) Terrell Owens
19) Steve Smith
20) Mike Williams

EDIT: I feel pretty good about this top-20 list. You may think TO and SS are high but they are all-time greats. I'm a little biased for Harvin and Dez and against Miles and VJax for some reason. One last observation - Bowe and BMarsh could easily be switched... interesting.

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 10:29 AM
with what scoring? he finished first in my league's scoring, therefore, he must be the best.

I figured out why he was #1 in your league. They probably gave him 10 points a game for wearing the blue helmet.

Again would love to see your league scoring format.

cmarq83
06-07-2011, 11:06 AM
Everyone should stop their man love with CJ, stop thinking about CJ's size, speed, and draft status and judge him by what he has done on the field. Megatron is a very capable receiver, but he is NOT a clear cut top 5. His numbers show that he is clearly top-10 but not top 5. In my opinion #4-10 is up in the air.

You can't take Calvin's size/speed ratio out of the equation and simply compare numbers because his attributes are exactly what makes him so dangerous while he's on the field. CJ is such a natural deep threat by nature that it's impossible to leave him single covered because of what he can do to single coverage. Thus teams have to tailor their defensive gameplan around stopping Johnson whereas Nicks, who is an outstanding receiver in his own right does not command as much attention.

Teams cannot run coverage schemes the same way they would against an Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, or a Calvin Johnson. Single high safeties are not an option and more often than not they roll a safety over to help

I see Hakeem Nicks as being a Roddy White/ Greg Jennings caliber receiver over the course of his career, but Calvin is a notch above with qualities that you cannot quantify.

jrdrylie
06-07-2011, 11:28 AM
Nicks numbers are comparable to CJ. So please explain it to me how comparing Nicks to CJ is "too much".

Just because CJ is a freak of nature does not automatically put him in the top 5. Shaq was a freak of nature too, but I never had him on my top WR list ever.

Nicks had more receptions than Calvin Johnson last season. However, CJ had more yards, more TDs, and a better average per catch. Johnson also faces many more double teams. And he caught passes from guys like Shaun Hill and Drew Stanton. Johnson is a much better receiver.

Nalej
06-07-2011, 12:06 PM
I don't understand all the YAC talk either when Megatron avg'd 4.6 vs 3.8 of Nicks

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 12:34 PM
Nicks had more receptions than Calvin Johnson last season. However, CJ had more yards, more TDs, and a better average per catch. Johnson also faces many more double teams. And he caught passes from guys like Shaun Hill and Drew Stanton. Johnson is a much better receiver.

I pretty much covered all this but I have no problems repeating myself
1) Giants only had 1 more passing yards than the Lions by years end.
2) Lions as a team had a better passing ratings than the Giants
3) Nicks was a top 5 WR in yards per game, and has a higher average than Johnson
4) Nicks was a top 5 WR in touchdowns per game, and outpaced CJ.
5) Nicks was a top 5 receptions per game, and outpaced CJ
6) Nicks was a top 5 in making plays of twenty+ yards, here Johnson was better.

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 12:36 PM
I don't understand all the YAC talk either when Megatron avg'd 4.6 vs 3.8 of Nicks

Go back and read my post, I said "YAC in traffic"

Megatron has the advantage of getting behind guys, that's where is YAC is coming from.

Most of Nicks YAC's came in traffic.

I will give you the win in this one because YAC is YAC and it does not matter how you get it.

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 12:37 PM
I am hungry for some Crow.

I hope by the end of 2011 that CJ will prove to be MONSTER while Nicks does he little girl performance... this way I can eat my crow.

Please Megatron! Don't let me down!!!

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 01:04 PM
You can't take Calvin's size/speed ratio out of the equation and simply compare numbers because his attributes are exactly what makes him so dangerous while he's on the field. CJ is such a natural deep threat by nature that it's impossible to leave him single covered because of what he can do to single coverage. Thus teams have to tailor their defensive gameplan around stopping Johnson whereas Nicks, who is an outstanding receiver in his own right does not command as much attention.

Teams cannot run coverage schemes the same way they would against an Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, or a Calvin Johnson. Single high safeties are not an option and more often than not they roll a safety over to help

I see Hakeem Nicks as being a Roddy White/ Greg Jennings caliber receiver over the course of his career, but Calvin is a notch above with qualities that you cannot quantify.

You are another one missing the point.

CJ has had a great 4 year career, but there have been plenty of guys who have had just as good or better in a 4 year stretch. However these guys don't seem to get the love that CJ does. Football should be judged on what you have done on the field, and should never what you timed on the track or lifted in the weight room.

One of the best 4-year stretch ever was by Wes Welker, and I never see any boyfriend love for him. Is it because you guys only fall in love with tall black guys and not short white guys?

AGAIN WANT REITERATE: I am not trying to take anything away from CJ. Last year, his performance was easily top10 and arguably top3.

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 01:15 PM
I am hungry for some Crow.

I hope by the end of 2011 that CJ will prove to be MONSTER while Nicks does he little girl performance... this way I can eat my crow.

Please Megatron! Don't let me down!!!

Again for effect.

cmarq83
06-07-2011, 01:40 PM
You are another one missing the point.

CJ has had a great 4 year career, but there have been plenty of guys who have had just as good or better in a 4 year stretch. However these guys don't seem to get the love that CJ does. Football should be judged on what you have done on the field, and should never what you timed on the track or lifted in the weight room.

One of the best 4-year stretch ever was by Wes Welker, and I never see any boyfriend love for him. Is it because you guys only fall in love with tall black guys and not short white guys?

AGAIN WANT REITERATE: I am not trying to take anything away from CJ. Last year, his performance was easily top10 and arguably top3.

As a patriots fan I love Wes Welker, but despite his sensational numbers I would take CJ every single time over Welker for the same reasons I mentioned CJ over Nicks. Wes runs outs, curls, slants, drags, and whip routes all game long. It allows him to put up outstanding numbers and be a perfect hot route receiver for Tom Brady, but at the same time he is not a guy who you have to identify on the field at all times. If you leave CJ in single coverage he will burn you because of his ability to run a more vertical route tree.

The way teams cover Calvin alters the course of the game in so many ways. When they roll a safety over to his side it opens up space for offenses to attack the middle and opposing sides of the field. It also makes it easier for teams to run by taking a safety further away from the play. I think the fact that the Detroit Lions put up so many passing yards is a testament to Johnson's ability rather than an indicator that he should be putting up better numbers.

There is a lot more to comparing football players than saying player A's stats are = player B's thus
Player A= Player B

cmarq83
06-07-2011, 01:42 PM
Was anyone else surprised to see Tony Gonzales ranked #46?

niel89
06-07-2011, 01:45 PM
I agree that the perception of Calvin Johnson is boosted because of his substantial physical tools. People love guys who have rare size/weight/speed and sometimes people perception of their actual on the field performance on the field is inflated due to the marvel of the players tremendous physical abilities. I think that this effect is happening with CJ to a degree. I think that CJ is easy top 10 and is more than likely top 5 but people's view of his might be slightly skewed in my opinion. That being said I think he is clearly better than Nicks.


Also its impossible to say if you swap CJ & Nicks that something will definitely happen. Yes the Lions offense put up similar total passing numbers but the Lions offense was not as good as the Giants. Eli is a better QB that what the Lions had out there last year.

Being the only real credible receiver for the Lions probably did funnel catches toward CJ, but on the other hand he probably saw a much greater share of double teams without other threats at WR. Who is to say that being on the Giants with other legit targets wouldn't have opened him up to make even more plays. Maybe not more catches but more explosive plays and maybe put up numbers more in line with his 08 numbers.

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 02:46 PM
As a patriots fan I love Wes Welker, but despite his sensational numbers I would take CJ every single time over Welker for the same reasons I mentioned CJ over Nicks. Wes runs outs, curls, slants, drags, and whip routes all game long. It allows him to put up outstanding numbers and be a perfect hot route receiver for Tom Brady, but at the same time he is not a guy who you have to identify on the field at all times. If you leave CJ in single coverage he will burn you because of his ability to run a more vertical route tree.

1) The way teams cover Calvin alters the course of the game in so many ways. When they roll a safety over to his side it opens up space for offenses to attack the middle and opposing sides of the field. It also makes it easier for teams to run by taking a safety further away from the play. I think the fact that the Detroit Lions put up so many passing yards is a testament to Johnson's ability rather than an indicator that he should be putting up better numbers.

2) There is a lot more to comparing football players than saying player A's stats are = player B's thus
Player A= Player B



1) CJ alters the course of the game but yet every team he has been on has had a losing record. So it appears, to me he does not alter it that much. But what the heck do I know, I am just a student of the game here to learn from all you masters.

2) Tell me how you want to judge them then? I am open to learn new things. I am just a student learning from all you "MASTERS"

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 02:48 PM
Was anyone else surprised to see Tony Gonzales ranked #46?

He may be the best TE of all time (or at least be considered), but no way he is the 46th best player of 2011.

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 03:01 PM
are you serious? actually, no need to answer. you're not. no one could legitimately believe anything you've said here. nice work on the troll. carry on.

I am a Trapper not a Troll. I don't like trolls either.

I am serious, I don't know of one WR in the history of the NFL that has had more than 110 Receptions for 3 straight years. Andre Johnson nor Larry Fitx has not done that, not even the great Jerry Rice.

You can say that Welker is different and plays a different game, and that he is more of an "quick first look" possession receiver type. However, Chris Carter, the greatest "possession" WR of all time never even accomplished that tasked.

If you are the only one that does something great, should you not be considered one of the greatest? So why is it that Welker does not get the boyfriend love that CJ gets? You fellas don't like short and quick white guys?

Splat
06-07-2011, 03:01 PM
Gonzo is well liked by his peers and for good reason so I'm not surprised by him being 46th but I can understand people being up set with it at this point in his career.

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 03:05 PM
I agree that the perception of Calvin Johnson is boosted because of his substantial physical tools. People love guys who have rare size/weight/speed and sometimes people perception of their actual on the field performance on the field is inflated due to the marvel of the players tremendous physical abilities. I think that this effect is happening with CJ to a degree. I think that CJ is easy top 10 and is more than likely top 5 but people's view of his might be slightly skewed in my opinion. That being said I think he is clearly better than Nicks.


Also its impossible to say if you swap CJ & Nicks that something will definitely happen. Yes the Lions offense put up similar total passing numbers but the Lions offense was not as good as the Giants. Eli is a better QB that what the Lions had out there last year.

Being the only real credible receiver for the Lions probably did funnel catches toward CJ, but on the other hand he probably saw a much greater share of double teams without other threats at WR. Who is to say that being on the Giants with other legit targets wouldn't have opened him up to make even more plays. Maybe not more catches but more explosive plays and maybe put up numbers more in line with his 08 numbers.


I am in agreement with everything you said other than "he is clearly better than Nicks". But don't blame you one bit for taking that stance, and think you are perfectly justified.

I too don't think stats means all that. And when I say Nicks is top-5 and would take him over CJ, it's not because of his stats. I believe he is just the more complete Receiver.

prock
06-07-2011, 03:18 PM
1) CJ alters the course of the game but yet every team he has been on has had a losing record. So it appears, to me he does not alter it that much. But what the heck do I know, I am just a student of the game here to learn from all you masters.

2) Tell me how you want to judge them then? I am open to learn new things. I am just a student learning from all you "MASTERS"

1) Football is a team sport.

2) You watch them and notice their impact. You can't use only stats to judge a player. There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 03:19 PM
no, you're a troll. who accuses an entire site of racism, solely because they disagree with you that box scores are the only thing worth looking at, ever? i mean, why even play the games? i have some **STATS**. that's clearly all anyone ever needs for anything.

How did I accuse an entire site or racism? Boyfriend love is subjective sometimes.

Some guys prefer Asians to Blondes, would you call them Racists?

jrdrylie
06-07-2011, 03:19 PM
1) CJ alters the course of the game but yet every team he has been on has had a losing record. So it appears, to me he does not alter it that much. But what the heck do I know, I am just a student of the game here to learn from all you masters.

2) Tell me how you want to judge them then? I am open to learn new things. I am just a student learning from all you "MASTERS"

Barry Sanders is unarguably one of the top-five running backs of all time. Yet his teams rarely won. There is only so much one player (outside of a Manning or Brady type QB) for a team. Especially one as bad as the Lions

When you play for a team that has no other receiving weapons, a quarterback who can't stay healthy, a mediocre offensive line, one of the worst defenses in the NFL, and hasn't had a 1000 yard rusher since 2004, one receiver, no matter how talented, won't suddenly make that team a winner.

The way Johnson alters the game doesn't appear on his stat sheet. Teams constantly double or triple covering him allows other receivers to pick up yards. It allows Detroit to be 12th in passing despite having one the the bottom 10 group of quarterbacks (after the Stafford injury).

But since his game altering ability doesn't show up on his stat sheet, you don't see it. I guess according to you, since Denver passed for more yards than Philadelphia, New England, Pittsburgh, and Atlanta, Kyle Orton must be a better QB than Michael Vick, Ben Roethlisberger, Matt Ryan, and Tom Brady.

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 03:23 PM
1) Football is a team sport.

2) You watch them and notice their impact. You can't use only stats to judge a player. There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.


1) Thanks for that info, I almost forgot. You were the one that said CJ alters a game, if you are still losing how are you altering it?

2) Any particular game I should watch? What should I be watching for? Are you saying that Football statistics are all lies?

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 03:36 PM
Barry Sanders is unarguably one of the top-five running backs of all time. Yet his teams rarely won. There is only so much one player (outside of a Manning or Brady type QB) for a team. Especially one as bad as the Lions

When you play for a team that has no other receiving weapons, a quarterback who can't stay healthy, a mediocre offensive line, one of the worst defenses in the NFL, and hasn't had a 1000 yard rusher since 2004, one receiver, no matter how talented, won't suddenly make that team a winner.

The way Johnson alters the game doesn't appear on his stat sheet. Teams constantly double or triple covering him allows other receivers to pick up yards. It allows Detroit to be 12th in passing despite having one the the bottom 10 group of quarterbacks (after the Stafford injury).

But since his game altering ability doesn't show up on his stat sheet, you don't see it. I guess according to you, since Denver passed for more yards than Philadelphia, New England, Pittsburgh, and Atlanta, Kyle Orton must be a better QB than Michael Vick, Ben Roethlisberger, Matt Ryan, and Tom Brady.


1) Barry stats speaks for themselves. Barry has 5.0 ypc career average. I don't know of any guys with more than 4 full time season that did that.

So I guess with Barry it's OK to use Stats, but with Nicks it's not?

2) Forgive me if I have not picked it up yet, but when is it OK to use stats and when is it not?

3) So what you are saying... Johnson does not put up huge numbers but he alters the course of the game? Not enough to win, but enough to alter????? what????

AGAIN I WANT TO REITERATE: I am not about hating CJ, I love CJ and he should be considered one of the best of the game. I just believe Nicks to be the more complete WR.

jrdrylie
06-07-2011, 03:37 PM
1) Thanks for that info, I almost forgot. You were the one that said CJ alters a game, if you are still losing how are you altering it?

2) Any particular game I should watch? What should I be watching for? Are you saying that Football statistics are all lies?

Watch any game he has ever played. I would start with the 2006 ACC Championship game. Wake Forest constantly double covered him, yet he still got open. Georgie Tech continually threw to him deep. He rarely caught them because Wake's corners pretty much tackled him before the pass got to him every time. Better to give up a 15 yard penalty than a 60 yard touchdown. I would say he certainly altered that game despite the fact that Georgia Tech lost. Nothing that drastic is has happened in the NFL. But he is still one of the most double covered receivers in the league. He is the only guy on the Lions who defensive coordinators fear and game plan around.

And no, not all statistics are lies. But during the playoffs, I used statistics to say that the Bears had a great chance to beat the Packers. Better overall record, better division record, better record against common opponents. But who won that game? The Packers. Even though a lot of stats pointed to the Bears being better on paper, the Packers were the better team on the field. I'll also bring up Kyle Orton again. He had better stats than Ben Roethlisberger, Michael Vick, and Josh Freeman, but you would have a hard time finding many people who say he is better than any of those players.

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 03:38 PM
Ah, so now you're calling us all homosexual.

This keeps getting better.


Boyfriend love, man love... same thing. Does not mean you are a ****. The literal translation of "boy friend" has nothing to do with homosexuality. It just means friend that is a boy.

Did I clear that up?

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 03:53 PM
1) Watch any game he has ever played. I would start with the 2006 ACC Championship game. Wake Forest constantly double covered him, yet he still got open. Georgie Tech continually threw to him deep. He rarely caught them because Wake's corners pretty much tackled him before the pass got to him every time. Better to give up a 15 yard penalty than a 60 yard touchdown. I would say he certainly altered that game despite the fact that Georgia Tech lost. Nothing that drastic is has happened in the NFL.

2) But he is still one of the most double covered receivers in the league. He is the only guy on the Lions who defensive coordinators fear and game plan around.

3) And no, not all statistics are lies. But during the playoffs, I used statistics to say that the Bears had a great chance to beat the Packers. Better overall record, better division record, better record against common opponents. But who won that game? The Packers. Even though a lot of stats pointed to the Bears being better on paper, the Packers were the better team on the field. I'll also bring up Kyle Orton again. He had better stats than Ben Roethlisberger, Michael Vick, and Josh Freeman, but you would have a hard time finding many people who say he is better than any of those players.

1) So I should be watching College games of CJ that was taped 5 years ago? All this time I thought we were talking about CJ's NFL career.

2) How is he double covered more than others? The way some teams play, they double cover the opposing #1 WR almost every play, so how can you be doubled cover more than this?

The way the Jet's play is they have Reevus 1-on-1 on the teams 2nd best WR, and they double cover the opposing teams #1 WR, and they do this against all #1's.

If you blitz a lot, that means you are NOT double covering, so are you saying that teams do not blitz a lot against the Lions because of CJ?

jrdrylie
06-07-2011, 03:55 PM
1) Barry stats speaks for themselves. Barry has 5.0 ypc career average. I don't know of any guys with more than 4 full time season that did that.

So I guess with Barry it's OK to use Stats, but with Nicks it's not?

2) Forgive me if I have not picked it up yet, but when is it OK to use stats and when is it not?

3) So what you are saying... Johnson does not put up huge numbers but he alters the course of the game? Not enough to win, but enough to alter????? what????

AGAIN I WANT TO REITERATE: I am not about hating CJ, I love CJ and he should be considered one of the best of the game. I just believe Nicks to be the more complete WR.

1). I don't use stats to judge Barry's greatness. I use what I saw. I began watching football right during his prime and he is the greatest player I have ever seen live. Emmit Smith and Walter Payton have better numbers, but Sanders (in my opinion) is the better player.

2). You can use stats. But saying Player A has better stats than Player B so Player A is better does not work. Each player is different. Different offensive styles, different supporting cast. Like I said, Ben Roethlisberger is probably around 12-15th in terms of best stats. But if I have to pick one QB to win a game, he is easily top five.

3). Calvin does put up great stats. In his three years as a full time starter, he's averaged 74 receptions, 1145 yards, grabbed 29 TDs. That is with a rookie Matt Stafford, Shaun Hill, Drew Stanton, and Daunte Culpepper, throwing him passes, no competent number two receiving option, and no running game. Compare that to the Giants, who have a top-ten QB, two other good receivers, and a very good running game.

jrdrylie
06-07-2011, 04:06 PM
1) So I should be watching College games of CJ that was taped 5 years ago? All this time I thought we were talking about CJ's NFL career.

2) How is he double covered more than others? The way some teams play, they double cover the opposing #1 WR almost every play, so how can you be doubled cover more than this?

The way the Jet's play is they have Reevus 1-on-1 on the teams 2nd best WR, and they double cover the opposing teams #1 WR, and they do this against all #1's.

If you blitz a lot, that means you are NOT double covering, so are you saying that teams do not blitz a lot against the Lions because of CJ?

I was just using that one game as an example, because that year I saw Johnson in person eight times and he is the most impressive college receiver I've ever seen in person.

How about watch the end of the first Bears vs. Lions game. His touchdown catch that got called off (possibly the wrong call) was a catch that probably only he and Larry Fitzgerald could make. Just watch a couple highlights of Johnson. He constantly makes catches in triple coverage. One such example is when he had five Charger defenders around him yet still made a catch on a hail Mary pass.

Johnson is bigger, faster, has better leaping ability, better hands, and better ball skills than Nicks. Put him on a good team, he's the best receiver in the NFL.

prock
06-07-2011, 04:28 PM
1) Barry stats speaks for themselves. Barry has 5.0 ypc career average. I don't know of any guys with more than 4 full time season that did that.

So I guess with Barry it's OK to use Stats, but with Nicks it's not?

2) Forgive me if I have not picked it up yet, but when is it OK to use stats and when is it not?

3) So what you are saying... Johnson does not put up huge numbers but he alters the course of the game? Not enough to win, but enough to alter????? what????

AGAIN I WANT TO REITERATE: I am not about hating CJ, I love CJ and he should be considered one of the best of the game. I just believe Nicks to be the more complete WR.

Barry Sanders was brought up to show that just because you aren't on a winning team, it doesn't make you any less of a player. Some people aren't smart enough to even insult.

It is OK to use stats when combining them with other factors. Using solely stats is never OK in football. What happens isn't that easy to quantify.

Do you know what altering means? Altering means that he changes the game. Other teams have to change the way they play defense so CJ doesn't score on every play. Nicks isn't game-planned around the same way CJ is. CJ has no supporting cast. Nicks has a very good team around him. You need to understand football is not about stats. It isn't about one player.

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 04:30 PM
Johnson is bigger, faster, has better leaping ability, better hands, and better ball skills than Nicks. Put him on a good team, he's the best receiver in the NFL.

A lot of people will be in agreement with you on this. I am not one of those, however I don't blame you guys if you want to take this stance.

jrdrylie
06-07-2011, 04:46 PM
A lot of people will be in agreement with you on this. I am not one of those, however I don't blame you guys if you want to take this stance.

No, every single person should be in agreement with that statement because they are facts, no opinions.

1). Johnson is bigger- 6'5 235 vs. 6'1 215
2). Johnson is faster- 4.33 vs. 4.49
3). Johnson is a better leaper- 44.5 vs. 36 in vertical
4). Johnson has better hands and better ball skills- Just watch a highlight tape of both players. Johnson constantly makes leaping grabs in double or triple coverage.

Two Things I forgot to mention
5). Johnson is smarter- 41 vs 11 in the wonderlic.
6). Johnson is better against common opponents- In the 7 common games (including a common game) Johnson had 37 receptions, 519.5 yards (I averaged the two games against Chicago and Green Bay), and 7.5 TD. Nicks had 35 receptions, 466 yards, and 2.5 TDs (averages his two games against Dallas and Philadelphia)

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 04:50 PM
1). I don't use stats to judge Barry's greatness. I use what I saw. I began watching football right during his prime and he is the greatest player I have ever seen live. Emmit Smith and Walter Payton have better numbers, but Sanders (in my opinion) is the better player.

2). You can use stats. But saying Player A has better stats than Player B so Player A is better does not work. Each player is different. Different offensive styles, different supporting cast. Like I said, Ben Roethlisberger is probably around 12-15th in terms of best stats. But if I have to pick one QB to win a game, he is easily top five.

3). Calvin does put up great stats. In his three years as a full time starter, he's averaged 74 receptions, 1145 yards, grabbed 29 TDs. That is with a rookie Matt Stafford, Shaun Hill, Drew Stanton, and Daunte Culpepper, throwing him passes, no competent number two receiving option, and no running game. Compare that to the Giants, who have a top-ten QB, two other good receivers, and a very good running game.


1) I agree, he is one of the greatest I have seen too. However, I read one article from some guy who pointed out his playoff average (all outdoors) was only 2.9 ypc and he choked in other big games. The guy even mentioned that on grass, Sanders was not all that. But he did conclude by saying that Sanders should be in everyone's top 3 list.

2) Stats are just one way to measure greatness. If you do not want to use this one tool that is your prerogative.

3) Yes, but I still believe Nicks to be the more complete receiver.

EricCartmann
06-07-2011, 04:56 PM
No, every single person should be in agreement with that statement because they are facts, no opinions.

1). Johnson is bigger- 6'5 235 vs. 6'1 215
2). Johnson is faster- 4.33 vs. 4.49
3). Johnson is a better leaper- 44.5 vs. 36 in vertical
4). Johnson has better hands and better ball skills- Just watch a highlight tape of both players. Johnson constantly makes leaping grabs in double or triple coverage.

Two Things I forgot to mention
5). Johnson is smarter- 41 vs 11 in the wonderlic.
6). Johnson is better against common opponents- In the 7 common games (including a common game) Johnson had 37 receptions, 519.5 yards (I averaged the two games against Chicago and Green Bay), and 7.5 TD. Nicks had 35 receptions, 466 yards, and 2.5 TDs (averages his two games against Dallas and Philadelphia)


1-4) again, using off the field track times to judge a WR is not something you would find me doing. If I ever do, I think that's God's way of telling myself I need to put a .45 to my head.

5) it seems Nicks understands the plays just fine, and he runs great routes despite being an "idiot". how smart do you have to be to be a WR?

6) So your judging both players solely by picking 7 games of your choice? That's great. Can I do the same? Well Nicks did better than Johnson when games were played on odd days that were night games.

DoughBoy
06-07-2011, 06:20 PM
There is only one true god at the WR positon.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/sports/photos/2011/04/19/594-britt-kenny-ap-110419.jpg

LOOK AT THAT BEAUTIFUL FACE! JUST ******* LOOK AT IT!

TACKLE
06-07-2011, 06:26 PM
Although I do believe wonderlic scores and forty times are useless in this debate, when production is comparable, considering skill set, attributes and ability to impact defenses is every bit and probably more relevant in this discussion than stats. Stats can be very much influenced by scheme, situation and quarterback play and there's just so many factors going beyond stats in this discussion. Players with the most complete skill set will be among the most effective as well. I'm not talking forty times, height and vertical jump numbers from the combine. I mean things like ability separate, ability to maintain speed in and out of breaks, ability to consistently beat press, strong hands, ability to elevate for the ball, speed/acceleration to stretch the defense vertically, YAC ability, etc., etc. The player who possess the best and most complete skill set who can succeed in any scheme 'better' than someone who has less attributes but has marginally better stats.

jrdrylie
06-07-2011, 08:10 PM
1-4) again, using off the field track times to judge a WR is not something you would find me doing. If I ever do, I think that's God's way of telling myself I need to put a .45 to my head.

5) it seems Nicks understands the plays just fine, and he runs great routes despite being an "idiot". how smart do you have to be to be a WR?

6) So your judging both players solely by picking 7 games of your choice? That's great. Can I do the same? Well Nicks did better than Johnson when games were played on odd days that were night games.

If you honestly believe Nicks is faster and a better leaper than Johnson, on or off the field, you are crazy. Outside of DeSean Jackson, Johnson is the best deep threat in the NFL,

I'm not basing players solely on seven games. I base it on how the players affect the overall game, their overall skill set, and then stats. And I think the best way to judge two players based on stats is to view how they do against similar opponents.

Johnson has a much bigger overall affect on the game. They have similar numbers individually. But Johnson has more explosive plays. Johnson demands more double and triple teams. Johnson opens things up more for his fellow teammates.

Their overall skill set is not even close. Johnson is bigger, faster, more athletic, better at jump balls, and has great hands. The only part of Nicks skill set that is better is route running.

EricCartmann
06-08-2011, 10:38 AM
If you honestly believe Nicks is faster and a better leaper than Johnson, on or off the field, you are crazy. Outside of DeSean Jackson, Johnson is the best deep threat in the NFL,

Please go back and tell me where I said Nicks was faster and a better leaper than Megatron. While you are at it, please go back and point out where I said Nicks was the better deep threat.


I'm not basing players solely on seven games. I base it on how the players affect the overall game, their overall skill set, and then stats. And I think the best way to judge two players based on stats is to view how they do against similar opponents.


You seem to have figured it out. You and Einstein should get in a room together. He can talk about how he proved Relativity, and you can talk about how you proved the best way to compare WR is with 7 common opponents, at different times of the year, with varying players.



Johnson has a much bigger overall affect on the game. They have similar numbers individually. But Johnson has more explosive plays. Johnson demands more double and triple teams. Johnson opens things up more for his fellow teammates.


If Johnson has such a big effect on the game, how come Nicks ended the year with more receptions while playing 3 LESS games? If Johnson has such a big effect on the game and his plays so explosive how come his teams still lose?



Their overall skill set is not even close. Johnson is bigger, faster, more athletic, better at jump balls, and has great hands. The only part of Nicks skill set that is better is route running.

Again you seem to figured out. That is the way to judge a WR is to judge each component individually? Like lets have a running contest, then a catching contest, then a jumping contest, then at the end of the day who has the highest score, we proclaim him the better WR? This is Brilliant! Should I call you Professor from now on?

jrdrylie
06-08-2011, 11:33 AM
Please go back and tell me where I said Nicks was faster and a better leaper than Megatron. While you are at it, please go back and point out where I said Nicks was the better deep threat.

I said Johnson is bigger, faster, and a better leaper than Nicks. You replied with this.
A lot of people will be in agreement with you on this. I am not one of those, however I don't blame you guys if you want to take this stance.

That sure sounds like you saying Nick is faster and a better leaper. As for a better deep threat. You never said Nicks was a better deep threat. That was just me pointing out yet another way Johnson is better.

You seem to have figured it out. You and Einstein should get in a room together. He can talk about how he proved Relativity, and you can talk about how you proved the best way to compare WR is with 7 common opponents, at different times of the year, with varying players.

Your reading comprehension needs some serious help. I never said that was the best way to compare receivers. In fact, I think using statistics is one of the worst ways to compare receivers. But if you are going to use statistics, looking at how they did against common opponents is the best way in my opinion.


If Johnson has such a big effect on the game, how come Nicks ended the year with more receptions while playing 3 LESS games? If Johnson has such a big effect on the game and his plays so explosive how come his teams still lose?

You apparently don't understand the word effect. Even if your team loses, you can still have a huge effect on the game. Johnson opens up the field for other receivers to make plays, even though is other receivers are below average. He forces defensive coordinators to game plan around him. They don't go into the game saying "how are we going to stop Jahvid Best and Brandon Pettigrew." They ask "How on Earth are we going to cover Calvin Johnson." I doubt defensive coordinators do the same for Hakeem Nicks. Another example is Chris Johnson. He is a great player. Probably the most game-altering running back in the league. But his team sucks. Because ReShard Mendenhall had similar stats and a better team record, he had more effect on games than Chris Johnson?


Again you seem to figured out. That is the way to judge a WR is to judge each component individually? Like lets have a running contest, then a catching contest, then a jumping contest, then at the end of the day who has the highest score, we proclaim him the better WR? This is Brilliant! Should I call you Professor from now on?

Once again, you don't understand what we are saying. Judging by stats, Johnson and Nicks are similar. Judging on how they effect the game and how defensive coordinators gameplan, Johnson wins. The running, jumping, catching, and route running are aspects of their overall skill set. That is just one aspect of how to judge a player.

This list is a projection of how players will fare in 2011. Johnson and Nicks had similar years statistically last year. So let's, for arguments sake, say that Johnson and Nicks are even. What gives Johnson the edge in 2011 is that he has a better overall skill set for a wide receiver. His running game, with Jahvid Best in his second year and the addition of Mikel LeShoure should be much better. That will take pressure off of Johnson, maybe allowing him to see some single coverage. So does the addition of Titus Young. Lastly, Matt Stafford is coming back, giving him more consistent QB play. All those things combine point to Johnson being more successful in 2011 than Nicks.

EricCartmann
06-08-2011, 12:19 PM
blah blah

Your Exact words were:
Johnson is bigger, faster, has better leaping ability, better hands, and better ball skills than Nicks. Put him on a good team, he's the best receiver in the NFL.

Cartmann's exact words in response to your exact words above were:
A lot of people will be in agreement with you on this. I am not one of those, however I don't blame you guys if you want to take this stance.

It seems you don't understand Logical Fallacies (have no fear, most people do not). If just one part of an entire argument proves false, then that makes the entire argument false. Therefore, I can say I don't agree with that statement without specifically spelling out the part I don't agree with. If you do not agree with this, don't blame me, I don't make the rules, I just play along.

EricCartmann
06-08-2011, 12:22 PM
Your reading comprehension needs some serious help. I never said that was the best way to compare receivers. In fact, I think using statistics is one of the worst ways to compare receivers. But if you are going to use statistics, looking at how they did against common opponents is the best way in my opinion.


Can you help me with my reading comprehension skills?

I am not a mind reader, can you tell me what it is exactly you are trying to teach me?

Are you trying to teach me that judging common opponents over 7 games is better than judging each individual over the course of their career, that includes every game???? Is this what you are saying?

EricCartmann
06-08-2011, 12:45 PM
You apparently don't understand the word effect. Even if your team loses, you can still have a huge effect on the game. Johnson opens up the field for other receivers to make plays, even though is other receivers are below average. He forces defensive coordinators to game plan around him. They don't go into the game saying "how are we going to stop Jahvid Best and Brandon Pettigrew." They ask "How on Earth are we going to cover Calvin Johnson." I doubt defensive coordinators do the same for Hakeem Nicks. Another example is Chris Johnson. He is a great player. Probably the most game-altering running back in the league. But his team sucks. Because ReShard Mendenhall had similar stats and a better team record, he had more effect on games than Chris Johnson?



I am so happy to have "smart" people like you around. So you can help me understand the word "effect".

I always thought that if you had a "huge effect" on the game, that you would single handedly win some games. If your team is losing 10 games it seems to me you do not have that much effect on the game. If Johnson truly does alter the game, why are the other guys not picking up the slack? I mean they should be wide open, and the Lions would get more wins. Or are you saying everyone else on the Lions just sucks?

Do you know how OC's gameplan? You seem to be in the know in a lot of things. How do they game plan for Megatron? How do they game plan for Nicks? In the case with the Jets, I see them double-cover the opposing teams #1 WR almost every play. Are you saying the Jets would triple team CJ?

I think Chris Johnson alters the game a whole lot more than Megatron. Chris single handedly won the Raiders and Giants game. Without him, I can see the Titans being 3-13 instead of 6-10. However, even Chris is not that much of "game altering player" as people think, as the Titans lost like 8 of their last 9. Last year Chris had a good (and not great) 4.3 yard average.

The Lions won 4 of their last game, 3 of those Megatron had very little impact on the outcome. Was this because Megatron was tripled team the whole game and that's why the Lions won?

jrdrylie
06-08-2011, 01:00 PM
Can you help me with my reading comprehension skills?

I am not a mind reader, can you tell me what it is exactly you are trying to teach me?

Are you trying to teach me that judging common opponents over 7 games is better than judging each individual over the course of their career, that includes every game???? Is this what you are saying?

Okay. let's judge based on their entire careers. Calvin Johnson was ranked the 37th best high schooler in the nation and the 6th best wide receiver in the nation. Nicks was the 31st best wide receiver and wasn't ranked in thew top-250 players. Does that have actual barring on their standing as NFL players? Probably not, but you wanted to judge them based on their entire careers.

In college, Johnson had 178 receptions, 2927 yards, and 28 TDs. Nicks had 181 receptions, 2840 yards, and 21 TDs. Once again, this doesn't mean much when judging them as NFL players, but Johnson has the edge here again.

But let's move on to the NFL. In their rookie years, they had nearly identical numbers. Johnson had 48 receptions, 756 yards, and 4 TDs. Nicks had 47 receptions, 790 yards, and 6 TDs. Slight edge to Nicks. But in year two, Johnson had 1 less catch but 279 yards more and 1 more TD. But let's call that a push. Johnson has two more years of production that Nicks does not.

So based on their entire careers, dating back to their time as high school recruits, Johnson beats out Nicks at every turn. Add in Johnson's superior athletic ability and wide receiver skill set and there is no logical argument to say Nicks is a better WR.

EricCartmann
06-08-2011, 01:08 PM
ooooops accidentally double posted.

EricCartmann
06-08-2011, 01:11 PM
Once again, you don't understand what we are saying. Judging by stats, Johnson and Nicks are similar. Judging on how they effect the game and how defensive coordinators gameplan, Johnson wins. The running, jumping, catching, and route running are aspects of their overall skill set. That is just one aspect of how to judge a player.

This list is a projection of how players will fare in 2011. Johnson and Nicks had similar years statistically last year. So let's, for arguments sake, say that Johnson and Nicks are even. What gives Johnson the edge in 2011 is that he has a better overall skill set for a wide receiver. His running game, with Jahvid Best in his second year and the addition of Mikel LeShoure should be much better. That will take pressure off of Johnson, maybe allowing him to see some single coverage. So does the addition of Titus Young. Lastly, Matt Stafford is coming back, giving him more consistent QB play. All those things combine point to Johnson being more successful in 2011 than Nicks.


I think I am slowly getting it. What you are saying is:
1) A jumping contest is a good way to determine a WR's accomplishments.
2) A running contest is a good way to determine a WR's accomplishments.
3) A catching contest is a good way to determine a WR's accomplishments.
4) A route-running contest is a good way to determine a WR's accomplishments.

Silly me, I was trying to combine all 4 in real games and not in individual contests. I always thought
- a player does not need to be the fastest, just fast enough to make the catch...
- or how a player does not need to jump the highest, just high enough to make the catch...
- or how a player does not need to be the best figure skater so he can skate the best route in front of judges, instead run a route good enough to get open and make the catch.

Forgive me for trying to judge WR's based on their accomplishments on the field instead of what they did in the weight room.

Also forgive me not knowing how Offensive Coordinators gameplan. You seem to know that Head-Coaches and OC's plan solely around Megatron, and Nicks is not even a blip on their radar.

EricCartmann
06-08-2011, 01:12 PM
Okay. let's judge based on their entire careers. Calvin Johnson was ranked the 37th best high schooler in the nation and the 6th best wide receiver in the nation. Nicks was the 31st best wide receiver and wasn't ranked in thew top-250 players. Does that have actual barring on their standing as NFL players? Probably not, but you wanted to judge them based on their entire careers.

In college, Johnson had 178 receptions, 2927 yards, and 28 TDs. Nicks had 181 receptions, 2840 yards, and 21 TDs. Once again, this doesn't mean much when judging them as NFL players, but Johnson has the edge here again.

But let's move on to the NFL. In their rookie years, they had nearly identical numbers. Johnson had 48 receptions, 756 yards, and 4 TDs. Nicks had 47 receptions, 790 yards, and 6 TDs. Slight edge to Nicks. But in year two, Johnson had 1 less catch but 279 yards more and 1 more TD. But let's call that a push. Johnson has two more years of production that Nicks does not.

So based on their entire careers, dating back to their time as high school recruits, Johnson beats out Nicks at every turn. Add in Johnson's superior athletic ability and wide receiver skill set and there is no logical argument to say Nicks is a better WR.

I was talking about NFL career. I don't really care about their Ice-Dancing Career, or what they did in their English classes. I am sure those things are important to you, but not to me. YMMV.

jrdrylie
06-08-2011, 01:19 PM
I am so happy to have "smart" people like you around. So you can help me understand the word "effect".

I always thought that if you had a "huge effect" on the game, that you would single handedly win some games. If your team is losing 10 games it seems to me you do not have that much effect on the game. If Johnson truly does alter the game, why are the other guys not picking up the slack? I mean they should be wide open, and the Lions would get more wins. Or are you saying everyone else on the Lions just sucks?

Do you know how OC's gameplan? You seem to be in the know in a lot of things. How do they game plan for Megatron? How do they game plan for Nicks? In the case with the Jets, I see them double-cover the opposing teams #1 WR almost every play. Are you saying the Jets would triple team CJ?

I think Chris Johnson alters the game a whole lot more than Megatron. Chris single handedly won the Raiders and Giants game. Without him, I can see the Titans being 3-13 instead of 6-10. However, even Chris is not that much of "game altering player" as people think, as the Titans lost like 8 of their last 9. Last year Chris had a good (and not great) 4.3 yard average.

The Lions won 4 of their last game, 3 of those Megatron had very little impact on the outcome. Was this because Megatron was tripled team the whole game and that's why the Lions won?

The Chicago game that the Lions lost (but only because an extremely questionable call) was nearly won because of Johnson's great red zone ability. In their win against Washington, he had three touchdowns and nearly half of Detroit's total receiving yards.

You obviously don't think the difference in talent of the Giants and Lions makes any difference. The Giants have a Super Bowl winning QB. The Lions played most of last year with their second and third string QB. The Giants had a 1000 yard rusher and another with 823. They have had four different players run for 1000 yards (six times total) since 2005. The Lions haven't had a 1000 yard rusher in that same time frame. Their leading rusher last year had 555 yards, to rank 38th in the NFL. The Giants have Steve Smith and Mario Manningham. The Lions have Nate Burleson. The Giants have been 13th and 7th in total defense during Nicks' career. The Lions have been 32nd in total defense in 3 of Johnson's 4 years and 21st in the other.

So let's see, the Lions have no running game, back up quarterbacks, one competent offensive weapon, and the worst defense in the league. But sure, it's Calvin Johnson's fault that the team sucks.

jrdrylie
06-08-2011, 01:20 PM
I was talking about NFL career. I don't really care about their Ice-Dancing Career, or what they did in their English classes. I am sure those things are important to you, but not to me. YMMV.

I said they weren't important, but you said look at the entire career. Even if you just look at their first two NFL seasons, Calvin Johnson was slightly better. Add in two additional years of Pro Bowl level production and Johnson has an even larger edge.

But enough about Johnson, I want to hear the argument for Nicks being a better receiver than Johnson.

EricCartmann
06-08-2011, 01:44 PM
The Chicago game that the Lions lost (but only because an extremely questionable call) was nearly won because of Johnson's great red zone ability. In their win against Washington, he had three touchdowns and nearly half of Detroit's total receiving yards.

You obviously don't think the difference in talent of the Giants and Lions makes any difference. The Giants have a Super Bowl winning QB. The Lions played most of last year with their second and third string QB. The Giants had a 1000 yard rusher and another with 823. They have had four different players run for 1000 yards (six times total) since 2005. The Lions haven't had a 1000 yard rusher in that same time frame. Their leading rusher last year had 555 yards, to rank 38th in the NFL. The Giants have Steve Smith and Mario Manningham. The Lions have Nate Burleson. The Giants have been 13th and 7th in total defense during Nicks' career. The Lions have been 32nd in total defense in 3 of Johnson's 4 years and 21st in the other.

So let's see, the Lions have no running game, back up quarterbacks, one competent offensive weapon, and the worst defense in the league. But sure, it's Calvin Johnson's fault that the team sucks.


You seem to think I hate Megatron and blame him for all the Lion's ills. Neither are the case.

I was basing comparison after the first 2 years of their careers. Johnson has only completed 4 years, and Nicks only 2.

Two years is not a very good way to judge a pair, but both players are so young, and it's only Nicks 2nd year, but it's really the only gauge to use.

Also I don't remember the Giants winning a Superbowl the last 2 years and Nicks has only played 2 years. So how is Nicks QB so much more superior than CJ's QBs'?

As a team last year, the Lions had a QB rating than was over 80, which was very close to the Giants 85. The Giants also only had 1 more passing yard than the Lions. What is it about Eli that would make CJ put up huge numbers?

Also still, If CJ is such an impact would he not open up the running game like the way Jerry Rice did? I don't remember world beating RB's that played with Rice, but they all got the job done.

EricCartmann
06-08-2011, 01:56 PM
I said they weren't important, but you said look at the entire career. Even if you just look at their first two NFL seasons, Calvin Johnson was slightly better. Add in two additional years of Pro Bowl level production and Johnson has an even larger edge.

But enough about Johnson, I want to hear the argument for Nicks being a better receiver than Johnson.

Over the course of their careers they have roughly the same numbers. I have no problem with people taking CJ over Nicks, no problems at all!

My whole argument is I do not believe he is CLEAR-CUT above Nicks. In 2011 I believe Nicks will put up the better numbers, that is all I am saying. If he has better numbers, and his team wins, then that is really the only thing I can go by.

I know you like to use jumping contests, skating contests, and running contests to judge a WR, but I don't. I only judge him by 2 things, the numbers he puts on the field, and the amount of wins his team gets.

Nicks stats of 2010 already proved he is a top-5 Receiver. I believe in 2011 he will have better numbers.

The thing I like about Nicks is he is a true #1 WR
1) runs great routes and gets open
2) even times he is not open, he has no problems catching the ball in heavy traffic.
3) he plays bigger than what he really is. Meaning when he goes up for a ball, he tends to come down with it, and he is hard to bring down. This is what us simpletons call "playing bigger"

As you can see, my 3 criteria's in judging a WR are a lot different than yours. Your criterias are:
1) running contest
2) catching contest
3) ice skating contest
4) coaches gameplans (which I know nothing about, unlike you who seems to know everything, I have no idea how the coaches plan their games).

Would I ever say Nicks is clearly above Johnson? No I would not.

Would I ever fault anyone for taking CJ over Nicks? No I would not.

I am just predicting that Nicks will have a better year than CJ in 2011. He is worthy of the NFL Top 100 players of 2011, which is basically the original argument.

jrdrylie
06-08-2011, 02:00 PM
You seem to think I hate Megatron and blame him for all the Lion's ills. Neither are the case.

I was basing comparison after the first 2 years of their careers. Johnson has only completed 4 years, and Nicks only 2.

Two years is not a very good way to judge a pair, but both players are so young, and it's only Nicks 2nd year, but it's really the only gauge to use.

Also I don't remember the Giants winning a Superbowl the last 2 years and Nicks has only played 2 years. So how is his QB so much more superior than the Giants?

As a team last year, the Lions had a better QB rating than was over 80, which was very close to the Giants 85. The Giants also only had 1 more passing yard than the Lions. What is it about Eli that would make CJ put up huge numbers?

Also still, If CJ is such an impact would he not open up the running game like the way Jerry Rice did? I don't remember world beating RB's that played with Rice, but they all got the job done.

The Giants quarterbacking is much better. Nobody in their right mind would take the combination of Shaun Hill and Drew Stanton over Eli Manning. A big reason the Giants had a lower passer rating than usual is that the receivers (including Nicks) dropped a ton of passes, many of which led to interceptions.

And the 49ers did have good running backs. Roger Craig was the first running back to have 1000 yards rushing and receiving in the same season. He's also one of only two running backs to lead the NFL in receptions. Rice also played with Ricky Watters, a player that many think should be in the Hall of Fame.

jrdrylie
06-08-2011, 02:05 PM
Would I ever say Nicks is clearly above Johnson? No I would not.

Would I ever fault anyone for taking CJ over Nicks? No I would not.

I am just predicting that Nicks will have a better year than CJ in 2011. He is worthy of the NFL Top 100 players of 2011, which is basically the original argument.

I'm kind of with you here. While I don't think Nicks is ahead of Johnson, I believe he has the ability to be a top-10 receiver. I strongly disagree with you that Nicks will have a better season than Johnson in 2011. With an improved running game, more offensive weapons, and a presumably healthy Matthew Stafford, I think Johnson will explode.

Now if Nicks out performs Johnson this year, then I think everybody might need to start thinking that despite his obviously superior physical skills, Johnson may not be as good a WR. But until then, it is too early to declare Nicks a top-ten receiver.

EricCartmann
06-08-2011, 02:13 PM
The Giants quarterbacking is much better. Nobody in their right mind would take the combination of Shaun Hill and Drew Stanton over Eli Manning. A big reason the Giants had a lower passer rating than usual is that the receivers (including Nicks) dropped a ton of passes, many of which led to interceptions.

And the 49ers did have good running backs. Roger Craig was the first running back to have 1000 yards rushing and receiving in the same season. He's also one of only two running backs to lead the NFL in receptions. Rice also played with Ricky Watters, a player that many think should be in the Hall of Fame.


Wow! You seem to do it all. Now you are a Mathematician!

So you are telling me that after the Giants dropped a pass, Eli threw an INT????? and that's why is rating is low? Boy you have an excuse for everything! I hope this thread goes to 500 pages. I learn so much from YOU!! you you you. hahahhaha

I know Nicks had hand problems his first year (just a little), but he improved a lot last year, but in one prime time game last year I believe he dropped 2 big catches, and this is why everyone still thinks he is a "dropper".

Looking at the worst droppers in the league, I don't see Nicks on the list. I do see "world beaters" Dwayne Bowe, DeSean Jackson, Wes Welker, and Steve Smiths (both) on the top droppers of 2010 list.

Top Dropping List source here: http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/05/23/drop-percentage/

EricCartmann
06-08-2011, 02:16 PM
I'm kind of with you here. While I don't think Nicks is ahead of Johnson, I believe he has the ability to be a top-10 receiver. I strongly disagree with you that Nicks will have a better season than Johnson in 2011. With an improved running game, more offensive weapons, and a presumably healthy Matthew Stafford, I think Johnson will explode.

Now if Nicks out performs Johnson this year, then I think everybody might need to start thinking that despite his obviously superior physical skills, Johnson may not be as good a WR. But until then, it is too early to declare Nicks a top-ten receiver.

It all depends on how you want to judge a WR. If you were to use a jumping contest or skating contest to judge them, then Nicks is NOT Top-10.

However if you want to use catches per game, TD's per game, and yards per game as grading criterias, then Nicks is a top-5 WR.. that is if you were to use these criteria's.

jrdrylie
06-08-2011, 02:24 PM
Wow! You seem to do it all. Now you are a Mathematician!

So you are telling me that after the Giants dropped a pass, Eli threw an INT????? and that's why is rating is low? Boy you have an excuse for everything! I hope this thread goes to 500 pages. I learn so much from YOU!! you you you. hahahhaha

I know Nicks had hand problems his first year (just a little), but he improved a lot last year, but in one prime time game last year I believe he dropped 2 big catches, and this is why everyone still thinks he is a "dropper".

Looking at the worst droppers in the league, I don't see Nicks on the list. I do see "world beaters" Dwayne Bowe, DeSean Jackson, Wes Welker, and Steve Smiths (both) on the top droppers of 2010 list.

Top Dropping List source here: http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/05/23/drop-percentage/

The Giants didn't drop passes and then Eli threw interceptions. Eli threw passes that hit the Giants receivers in the hands but the receiver didn't catch it and it was tipped into the defensive players hands. This didn't just happen once or twice. It happened 10 times, including five times because of Nicks.

Jughead10
06-08-2011, 02:49 PM
The Giants didn't drop passes and then Eli threw interceptions. Eli threw passes that hit the Giants receivers in the hands but the receiver didn't catch it and it was tipped into the defensive players hands. This didn't just happen once or twice. It happened 10 times, including five times because of Nicks.

This is true. It was more in the beginning of the season though. Nicks is extremely good but he needs to be more consistent. Everyone said he had the best pure hands in a long time, mainly because they are the size of dinner plates, but he drops too many easy balls. But I guess it evens out with the spectacular plays.

EricCartmann
06-08-2011, 03:03 PM
This is true. It was more in the beginning of the season though. Nicks is extremely good but he needs to be more consistent. Everyone said he had the best pure hands in a long time, mainly because they are the size of dinner plates, but he drops too many easy balls. But I guess it evens out with the spectacular plays.

I think the Nicks drop problems are cured. Someone pointed out that he drops easy balls because he is anticipating YAC before the C. They mentioned how once he concentrate on catching first, before moving, then the problem pretty much cured itself.

EricCartmann
06-08-2011, 03:04 PM
The Giants didn't drop passes and then Eli threw interceptions. Eli threw passes that hit the Giants receivers in the hands but the receiver didn't catch it and it was tipped into the defensive players hands. This didn't just happen once or twice. It happened 10 times, including five times because of Nicks.

I am here to learn from AWESOME Maestros's such as you.

Who do you blame if Eli makes the completion, then immediately throws an INT after? Do you blame the WR for making the catch?

Thanks for your time, on our way to 500 pages!

Jughead10
06-08-2011, 03:21 PM
I think the Nicks drop problems are cured. Someone pointed out that he drops easy balls because he is anticipating YAC before the C. They mentioned how once he concentrate on catching first, before moving, then the problem pretty much cured itself.

That's basically WR 101. I think it was a freak thing too as it did correct itself as the year went on. But we had way too many INTs like that last year on catchable balls.

jrdrylie
06-08-2011, 03:27 PM
I am here to learn from AWESOME Maestros's such as you.

Who do you blame if Eli makes the completion, then immediately throws an INT after? Do you blame the WR for making the catch?

Thanks for your time, on our way to 500 pages!

If a receiver drops a ball and then the quarterback throws an interception on the next pass, then I will usually blame the quarterback. There are cases (receiver running the wrong route, falling down, or giving up on a route), but 90% it would be the fault of the QB.

If a receiver catches a pass and then the QB throws an interception on the next pass, the same criteria holds true.

But that is not what I am talking about. The 10 interceptions I brought up were good passes from Eli Manning. They hit the receiver in both hands (or went right through their hands) and then fell into the hands of a defensive player. That is the receiver's fault. You can't blame the quarterback for that.

EricCartmann
06-08-2011, 03:32 PM
That's basically WR 101. I think it was a freak thing too as it did correct itself as the year went on. But we had way too many INTs like that last year on catchable balls.

Great Sig!

BTW: I am a Raiders guy, so don't think I am saying that because I am a Giant's homer.

EricCartmann
06-08-2011, 03:36 PM
If a receiver drops a ball and then the quarterback throws an interception on the next pass, then I will usually blame the quarterback. There are cases (receiver running the wrong route, falling down, or giving up on a route), but 90% it would be the fault of the QB.

If a receiver catches a pass and then the QB throws an interception on the next pass, the same criteria holds true.

But that is not what I am talking about. The 10 interceptions I brought up were good passes from Eli Manning. They hit the receiver in both hands (or went right through their hands) and then fell into the hands of a defensive player. That is the receiver's fault. You can't blame the quarterback for that.

Actually you can if the ball was not wear it's suppose to be. A WR can be expecting it on the inside instead it goes right between the numbers at 100 mph. Only person that knows where the ball is suppose to be is the QB, WR, and OC... so don't anyone tell me they know.

I don't doubt that Nicks caused 5 INT's but I sure would like to see them. 5 sounds like a big number based solely on 1 WR.

jrdrylie
06-08-2011, 03:49 PM
Actually you can if the ball was not wear it's suppose to be. A WR can be expecting it on the inside instead it goes right between the numbers at 100 mph. Only person that knows where the ball is suppose to be is the QB, WR, and OC... so don't anyone tell me they know.

I don't doubt that Nicks caused 5 INT's but I sure would like to see them. 5 sounds like a big number based solely on 1 WR.

A writer for the official Giants website broke down Manning's interceptions. 10 were tipped or dropped balls (four by Nicks) and two were incorrect routes ran by the receiver (once by Nicks). So yes, as hard as it might be to believe, Nicks was at fault for 5 INTs.

EricCartmann
06-08-2011, 04:07 PM
A writer for the official Giants website broke down Manning's interceptions. 10 were tipped or dropped balls (four by Nicks) and two were incorrect routes ran by the receiver (once by Nicks). So yes, as hard as it might be to believe, Nicks was at fault for 5 INTs.

Well if it's official that is more believable then some joe schmoe. However, I highly doubt that EVEN the writer knows for sure, even if it was from the "OFFICIAL" Giant's site. We don't know for sure if the ball was really where it was suppose to be. The players would never come out and say "Nicks was at fault", and Nicks will of course say "it's my fault".

Also, Nicks did get 120+ targets, and remember they throw balls to him in traffic, and anything can happen in traffic.

But I catch your drift, if he caused the INT then he caused the INT, so there is no excuse.

Stuff like this is interesting to read, but I am wondering if other studly WR's cause more INT's than Nicks and we just don't know about it?

descendency
06-08-2011, 05:22 PM
So how many more weeks until they announce #1, Tom Brady?

jrdrylie
06-09-2011, 07:58 AM
So how many more weeks until they announce #1, Tom Brady?

Pro Football Focus just recently rated Brady the 34th best player and 6th best QB from last year. But if he isn't 1st or 2nd on this list, it's a crime.

cmarq83
06-09-2011, 09:12 AM
So how many more weeks until they announce #1, Tom Brady?

I would expect Tom Brady to be #2. Since this is a review by the players I think Brady's fiery attitude on the field has given him a few more enemies on the field than a guy like Peyton. In a situation this close I think that will be the difference.

Splat
06-09-2011, 10:21 AM
I would expect Tom Brady to be #2. Since this is a review by the players I think Brady's fiery attitude on the field has given him a few more enemies on the field than a guy like Peyton. In a situation this close I think that will be the difference.

I don't think the lack of Jets players voting for him is going to stop him from being #1.

killxswitch
06-09-2011, 10:44 AM
There are lots of players that don't like Brady. What some call "fiery" others call "bratty" or "whiny" or "bitchy".

Splat
06-09-2011, 10:48 AM
You can not like someone and still respect their game. I hate John Elway doesn't stop me from thinking he is a top 5 QB ever.

BigBanger
06-09-2011, 12:48 PM
Some guys prefer Asians to Blondes, would you call them Racists?

Can Asians not be blondes or are blondes a race? What a mighty conversation this could develop into. I think I just got a big rubbery one.

EricCartmann
06-09-2011, 01:21 PM
Can Asians not be blondes or are blondes a race? What a mighty conversation this could develop into. I think I just got a big rubbery one.

I guess if you are into animals, then yeah Asian Dogs can be blondes.

I was referring to women though, most people categorize their women like: asians, blondes, red heads, blacks, latinas, etc.

I guess you can be both a blonde and a latina, but I don't make the rules. I only play along. If you are not happy with this format let me know and I will use whatever format you want. I am here for you friend and buddy.

Or maybe you were talking about men? I don't know how men are categorized so I apologize if I broke a rule here.

keylime_5
06-09-2011, 03:43 PM
interesting that they put the best left tackle in football at no.43. offensive linemen still get no respect.

YAYareaRB
06-09-2011, 04:53 PM
Can Asians not be blondes or are blondes a race? What a mighty conversation this could develop into. I think I just got a big rubbery one.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l35gnw7Gt41qbupc4o1_500.jpg

BOOM!

RCAChainGang
06-09-2011, 05:44 PM
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l35gnw7Gt41qbupc4o1_500.jpg

BOOM!

Trolololol
He has a point here.

EricCartmann
06-09-2011, 06:01 PM
Here is another Asian Blonde

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20061223180614/uncyclopedia/images/f/f5/Asian_blonde.JPG

LonghornsLegend
06-09-2011, 06:26 PM
I see this thread has evolved nicely.

niel89
06-09-2011, 08:31 PM
You're just mad because you got trapper-ed

phlysac
06-09-2011, 09:09 PM
You're just mad because you got trapper-ed

QUICK!!!!.... Close the velcro flap and lock him in there....

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/4391/trapperkeeper.jpg

EricCartmann
06-09-2011, 10:25 PM
You're just mad because you got trapper-ed

I am old school, in my day we did not consider Asians blond even if they did have blond hair.

killxswitch
06-09-2011, 10:40 PM
I am old school, in my day we did not consider Asians blond even if they did have blond hair.

That has nothing to do with being old school, that's just weird and probably not true.

EricCartmann
06-09-2011, 10:53 PM
That has nothing to do with being old school, that's just weird and probably not true.

Asian Blonds are very real, and your right, it's weird!!!!

descendency
06-09-2011, 11:01 PM
Pro Football Focus just recently rated Brady the 34th best player and 6th best QB from last year. But if he isn't 1st or 2nd on this list, it's a crime.

33rd and the author of that post clearly doesn't know **** about football. Plain and simple.

edit: PFW tries to do football analysis on broadcast film. That should tell you what kind of hacks that site employs.

jack1077
06-10-2011, 12:07 AM
There are lots of players that don't like Brady. What some call "fiery" others call "bratty" or "whiny" or "bitchy".

"He's a man, he can be hit just like us" - Ray Lewis on Tom Brady

"Don't Cry when you step on the field man, that's war out there" - Ray Lewis on Tom Brady

Brothgar
06-10-2011, 02:12 AM
As this list goes along I have a real fear that Elvis Dummervil will not be on this list. Which when the topic is best players of 2011 I would assume it is the 2011/2012 season. Otherwise McNabb wouldn't sniff this list. If Elvis is left off this list it has no legitimacy in my eyes.

killxswitch
06-10-2011, 08:24 AM
As this list goes along I have a real fear that Elvis Dummervil will not be on this list. Which when the topic is best players of 2011 I would assume it is the 2011/2012 season. Otherwise McNabb wouldn't sniff this list. If Elvis is left off this list it has no legitimacy in my eyes.

Maybe him missing the 2010 season plays a part in that. Maybe people voting left him out because they didn't know how he'd be after his recovery.

gpngc
06-12-2011, 11:21 PM
I still don't understand how and why Wilfork fell to the 20s in that draft. I really don't get it at all. Teams must have thought he'd balloon up to 400 and never work or something... it's nuts.

vidae
06-12-2011, 11:58 PM
I kinda thought Jamaal Charles would be higher than 33 on that list.

descendency
06-13-2011, 01:17 AM
I still don't understand how and why Wilfork fell to the 20s in that draft. I really don't get it at all. Teams must have thought he'd balloon up to 400 and never work or something... it's nuts.

Execs were sitting there thinking "Gee... I don't think the Patriots are good enough yet."

It's really nice of them to be that considerate.

Ness
06-13-2011, 03:50 AM
I guess if you are into animals, then yeah Asian Dogs can be blondes.

I was referring to women though, most people categorize their women like: asians, blondes, red heads, blacks, latinas, etc.

I guess you can be both a blonde and a latina, but I don't make the rules. I only play along. If you are not happy with this format let me know and I will use whatever format you want. I am here for you friend and buddy.

Or maybe you were talking about men? I don't know how men are categorized so I apologize if I broke a rule here.

People should get their **** straight then. Asian women can have blonde hair. So can black women. Mixing ethnic background and hair color is pretty ********.

BigBanger
06-13-2011, 11:58 AM
I guess if you are into animals, then yeah Asian Dogs can be blondes.

I was referring to women though, most people categorize their women like: asians, blondes, red heads, blacks, latinas, etc.

I guess you can be both a blonde and a latina, but I don't make the rules. I only play along. If you are not happy with this format let me know and I will use whatever format you want. I am here for you friend and buddy.

Or maybe you were talking about men? I don't know how men are categorized so I apologize if I broke a rule here.

BRILLIANT!!!!!


I am racist because I prefer blonds to [insert race here]. Incredible. Formatting rules.




Anyway, back to the list.


100.D. McNabb Redskins, QB
99.C. Clifton Packers, OT
98.D. McFadden Raiders, RB
97.S. Phillips Chargers, DE
96.N. Collins Packers, S
95.J. Beason Panthers, LB
94.F. Gore 49ers, RB
93.E. Berry Chiefs, S
92.L. Briggs Bears, LB
91.T. Owens Bengals, WR
90.J. Flacco Ravens, QB
89.A. Wilson Cardinals, S
88.V. Davis 49ers, TE
87.J. Gross Panthers, OT
86.J. Freeman Buccaneers, QB
85.J. Babin Titans, DE
84.J. Cribbs Browns, WR
83.M. Williams Buccaneers, WR
82.L. Woodley Steelers, LB
81.B. Raji Packers, DT
80.J. Allen Vikings, DE
79.D. Ferguson Jets, OT
78.D. Clark Colts, TE
77.C. Snee Giants, G
76.S. Holmes Jets, WR
75.J. Ratliff Cowboys, DE
74.G. Jennings Packers, WR
73.T. Cole Eagles, DE
72.T. Romo Cowboys, QB
71.M. Williams Texans, DE
70.M. Austin Cowboys, WR
69.J. Abraham Falcons, DE
68.A. Rolle Giants, S
67.B. Waters Chiefs, G
66.R. Seymour Raiders, DE
65.V. Leach Texans, RB
64.T. Hali Chiefs, DE
63.C. Wake Dolphins, LB
62.J. Mayo Patriots, LB
61.B. Marshall Dolphins, WR
60.J. Tuck Giants, DE
59.J. Saturday Colts, C
58.B. Lloyd Broncos, WR
57.A. Gurode Cowboys, C
56.R. Rice Ravens, RB
55.C. Nicks Saints, G
54.A. Samuel Eagles, CB
53.M. Colston Saints, WR
52.M. Ryan Falcons, QB
51.N. Suh Lions, DT
50.W. Welker Patriots, WR
49.B. Urlacher Bears, LB
48.C. Bailey Broncos, CB
47.N. Mangold Jets, C
46.T. Gonzalez Falcons, TE
45.D. Bowe Chiefs, WR
44.R. Mathis Colts, DE
43.J. Thomas Browns, T
42.M. Turner Falcons, RB
41.B. Roethlisberger Steelers, QB
40.T. Suggs Ravens, DE
39.L. Mankins Patriots, G
38.S. Jackson Rams, RB
37.J Vilma Saints, LB
36.J. Witten Cowboys, TE
35.V. Wilfork Patriots, NT
34.J. Evans Saints, G
33.J. Charles Chiefs, RB
32.D. Hester Bears, WR
31.R Wayne Colts, WR

Is Brandon Flowers getting royally snubbed from this list as well? I don't think it would ridiculous for him to crack the top 30, but I doubt he does. If Eric Berry makes it over Flowers, then this list a joke. 18 WRs though. Can't stand some of these players making it this high. Reggie Wayne and Wes Welker are two of the most overrated players in the NFL. They're system guys that benefit from playing with two of the greatest QBs to ever play, and they're in the perfect situation. If Wayne didn't choke in every big playoff game, then I could understand this ranking, but he should be a guy that's at the bottom of the top 100, not near the top. Same with Welker who lines up against nickel corners, zones and linebackers in a spread system. He's not a great payer, he's just really productive in a great system with a great QB. He runs slants, crossing patterns and jerk routes all game long. He's a slot receiver. He's sandwiched between a run stuffing DT that also compiled double digit sacks. An absolute monster. And then, one of the best MLBs and future Hall of Famer, Brian Urlacher. A guy with size, athleticism and supreme instincts. A leader. The guy in the middle of that perennial elite level Bears defense. Welker simply doesn't belong close to the top 50 when he's not the guy getting covered by the top CBs in the game.

Mike Vick... I knew he was going to be high, and I wont be surprised if he pushed the top 10, but ahead of a 2-X Super Bowl Champion and a guy with a 10-3 record in the playoffs? Senseless. Mike Vick was a running back playing QB up until last year. He makes a lot of highlights and he's difficult to defend, I get that, but he wasn't even a guy who could throw the football with any accuracy or timing until he hit Philadelphia. Terrible ranking.

I don't mind where Hester ranks. I think it's a little high and a few guys should be ranked ahead of him at overlooked positions (Mangold, Mankins, Joe Thomas, Wilfork).

EricCartmann
06-13-2011, 12:02 PM
People should get their **** straight then. Asian women can have blonde hair. So can black women. Mixing ethnic background and hair color is pretty ********.

or they should be more clear? Like say "blonde-white-girls" instead of just blonds? maybe "white" is not the word we should use either? "blond-European-americans and blond-europeans"????

Let me know what you want and I will do it. What are friends and buddies for?

Ness
06-13-2011, 01:39 PM
or they should be more clear? Like say "blonde-white-girls" instead of just blonds? maybe "white" is not the word we should use either? "blond-European-americans and blond-europeans"????

Let me know what you want and I will do it. What are friends and buddies for?

Well it depends. If you're talking about ethnics or hair style. If you are indeed talking about both, then yes being more clear would help. And using "white" is fine. That wasn't the issue.

It's not necessarily about what I want...just what I think. People are allowed to portray themselves however they want, just sharing my opinion...buddy.

EricCartmann
06-13-2011, 01:55 PM
Well it depends. If you're talking about ethnics or hair style. If you are indeed talking about both, then yes being more clear would help. And using "white" is fine. That wasn't the issue.

It's not necessarily about what I want...just what I think. People are allowed to portray themselves however they want, just sharing my opinion...buddy.

I am happy to have you around to clear that up for me.

For the record, I was categorizing girls, I said "some guys like blonds, some prefer Asians".

I have always thought of blonds as white girls and only white girls. I did not know that you had to explicitly say "white-blonds" because "black-blonds" and "asian-blonds" exist. We are in the age of Political Correctness and everyone is "Latte" expert.

From here forward on this site, I will no longer categorize girls as "asians, blonds, latinas"... from now on I'll use the following: "asians", "white-blonds", or "brunette-latinas".

Thank you for making my world a lot more complicated, because it's good for me.

Ness
06-13-2011, 02:00 PM
I am happy to have you around to clear that up for me.

For the record, I was categorizing girls, I said "some guys like blonds, some prefer Asians".

I have always thought of blonds as white girls and only white girls. I did not know that you had to explicitly say "white-blonds" because "black-blonds" and "asian-blonds" exist. We are in the age of Political Correctness and everyone is "Latte" expert.

From here forward on this site, I will no longer categorize girls as "asians, blonds, latinas"... from now on I'll use the following: "asians", "white-blonds", or "brunette-latinas".

Thank you for making my world a lot more complicated, because it's good for me.

You can say whatever you want. I just think it's stupid the way you had it before. But that's just me. And from what you just said you're still not really getting it. But I'm sure most people will understand.

Anyways, glad to be of help. Hopefully you aren't plagued by further ignorance.

EricCartmann
06-13-2011, 02:03 PM
You can say whatever you want. I just think it's stupid the way you had it before. But that's just me.

Anyways, glad to be of help. Hopefully you aren't plagued by further ignorance.

No I cannot say it whatever way I want. I need to say it the way Ness wants. Because I want to be cool like him.

Ness
06-13-2011, 02:05 PM
No I cannot say it whatever way I want. I need to say it the way Ness wants. Because I want to be cool like him.

If you really value my opinion that highly, then sure. Proceed.

Never said you couldn't say what you wanted to say. Way to get things twisted.

EricCartmann
06-13-2011, 02:29 PM
If you really value my opinion that highly, then sure. Proceed.

Never said you couldn't say what you wanted to say. Way to get things twisted.

But you did try, and I am here to comply to your most awesome wishes.

EricCartmann
06-13-2011, 02:29 PM
let's go ahead and stop feeding the troll, eh?

I am just as good at going off topic as anyone else.

Ness
06-13-2011, 02:38 PM
let's go ahead and stop feeding the troll, eh?

Word. Some folks are just helpless.

EricCartmann
06-13-2011, 02:52 PM
Word. Some folks are just helpless.

Was that directed at me? I resent that! I am not helpless. Thanks to you I have learned that Reese Witherspoon is a "white blond".. if I just used blond, that would have been bad!!!

See I am not helpless.