Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NFL Network's Top 100 players.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Elroy "Crazylegs" Hirsch ran like Forrest Gump.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Shiver View Post
      I'm tired of people elevating these players from the 50s and 60s. In basketball and football. Unless you are 60-70 years old then you have no business talking about Jim Brown. Who did he play? How many teams were there? What was the talent level across the league? I have no clue, but if I had to guess he was probably the only real athlete in the whole league at the time. My hatred of old timers isn't limited though, I feel the same way about Wilt, Oscar Robertson and Babe Ruth. Basically all the so-called sacred cows don't mean anything to me. I don't adhere to the unquestioned law that one must rank so and so #1 with no critical thought.

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

      Spectacular.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Shiver View Post
        I'm tired of people elevating these players from the 50s and 60s. In basketball and football. Unless you are 60-70 years old then you have no business talking about Jim Brown. Who did he play? How many teams were there? What was the talent level across the league? I have no clue, but if I had to guess he was probably the only real athlete in the whole league at the time. My hatred of old timers isn't limited though, I feel the same way about Wilt, Oscar Robertson and Babe Ruth. Basically all the so-called sacred cows don't mean anything to me. I don't adhere to the unquestioned law that one must rank so and so #1 with no critical thought.

        I bet Steven Jackson would have put up 20,000 career yards in the 1960s NFL.
        oh my god....someone like me. rep
        E]

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by wonderbredd24 View Post
          You admit you have no clue about anything relating to football in the 50's and 60's, yet are unafraid to make this statement.

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

          You know what I'm tired of? People elevating guys whose job since 8 years old was to train for football/basketball/whatever. Jim Brown and OJ didn't touch weights for their entire lives; imagine what they would have been like if things like weightlifting hadn't been discouraged.
          Last edited by yourfavestoner; 09-08-2010, 02:50 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Larry Allen was a ******* ox out there, it was ridiculous, I remember watching him bench at the pro bowl and throwing up 225 over 40 times. He's maxed out at 700lbs at least before and it was on film. Just think about that when he was on the inside paving holes wide open.





            Originally posted by Scott Wright
            I guarantee that if someone picks Cam Newton in the Top 5 they will regret it.

            Comment


            • #36


              Best Larry Allen play ever.

              Comment


              • #37
                There was some stupid ESPN skills challenge where they did the bench press... Larry Allen did 225 like 45 times and Jevon Kearse was unable to do 1.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by yourfavestoner View Post


                  Best Larry Allen play ever.

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





                  Originally posted by Scott Wright
                  I guarantee that if someone picks Cam Newton in the Top 5 they will regret it.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I cannot get over that play.

                    Bonekrusher.

                    Originally posted by JordanTaber
                    Football...it's rocket surgery now, folks.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by wonderbredd24 View Post
                      You admit you have no clue about anything relating to football in the 50's and 60's, yet are unafraid to make this statement.

                      Spectacular.

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

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

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

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by MasterShake View Post
                        Steve Young being lower than Troy Aikman causes me to lose faith in this Greatest 100 players...
                        Perhaps Aikman won't make the Top-100

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Wow I'm a little surprised to see Ed Reed on there. I absolutely agree with him being included but its surprising to see a current player from a newer franchise on there.


                          Originally posted by Scott Wright
                          Don't be a stranger. Jordyzzzz would want you to stick around. ;o)

                          Touch Fuzzy, Get Dizzy

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            3 out of the bottom 20 are Canes I'll take it.

                            Marino is the only Dolphin on the list. :(

                            That is correct comahan
                            I ******* LOVE YOU DG
                            <3 dg

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Shiver View Post
                              I'm tired of people elevating these players from the 50s and 60s. In basketball and football. Unless you are 60-70 years old then you have no business talking about Jim Brown. Who did he play? How many teams were there? What was the talent level across the league? I have no clue, but if I had to guess he was probably the only real athlete in the whole league at the time. My hatred of old timers isn't limited though, I feel the same way about Wilt, Oscar Robertson and Babe Ruth. Basically all the so-called sacred cows don't mean anything to me. I don't adhere to the unquestioned law that one must rank so and so #1 with no critical thought.

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

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

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

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Shiver View Post
                                Why should I be? It isn't a stretch. This is a completely different game than they played back then. It's like saying that Randy Johnson wasn't as good as Cy Young cause he didn't win as many games. That Oscar Robertson was just as good as LeBron James cause his average was better. That Johnny Unitas could have dominated like Peyton Manning has.

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

                                My main point is simple: these "all-time" lists are stupid. To compare a player like Jim Brown, who few have actually seen, to Jerry Rice who we have all seen is stupid. We understand Jerry Rice's game, who he faced off against, what his peers were doing, what the prevalent style of play was. We don't have any kind of appreciation of Jim Brown other than a shallow understanding that he supposedly was the best because old people tell me so.
                                I'm trying to grasp what your point may be, but I truly cannot. Are you saying that historical respect is ******** and that the list of the greatest 100 players in NFL history should be a grab bag of All-Pro players from the last decade or two and just leave it at that?

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

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information