NFL's Top 100 Players

Off Topic
41

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]overstand wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]overstand wrote:
I hate these lists because nobody can ever decide on a criteria. A lot of the all time great old timers ie Johnny Unitas and Jim Brown were great back then and put up crazy stats but they’d get smoked if they tried to play today. Also I think Joe Montana is consensus best QB of all time (Payton Manning might pass him up by the time he retires) but a lot of QBs will be ranked higher than Dan Marino because he doesnt have a super bowl ring even though he was much better. And Brett Favre will probably be ranked way too high just because hes a likable guy and he has a few records, but they won’t mention he also has the record for most interceptions and most times sacked and only got the others through sheer volume of play.

and lol @ Mark Sanchez, he sucks [/quote]

^^ you, sir, are certifiably retarded if you think Jim Brown would “get smoked” today.

Also Bret Favre DOESN’T hold the NFL record for being sacked the most times… He’s 5th on that list. Oh and as far as “having a few records” goes… Try most passing yards ever and most TD passes ever… Yeah just a few little records there lol.

Number 1 should/will be Joe Montana. From there on it’s pretty subjective but in the top 5 should be Rice (I’d say number 2) Brown, Walter Payton and Laurence Taylor.

Not really sure how I would want to rank them but they were all amazing players. Have to put Chris Carter, Reggie White, berry Sanders and Dan Marino in the top 10.

FTR I am not a Brett favre fan. [/quote]

My point was Brett Favre only has the records because hes played for so god damn long. He has the good records but he has the bad ones too.

And Jim Brown might be able to play today, but he wouldn’t put up near the numbers he did back then. The reason he was so good is because he was the biggest fastest dude in the league. Today he’d be a run of the mill RB. Sort of like Wilt Chamberlain in basketball, dude has crazy stats but the game just wasn’t what it is today. There were no Dwight Howards defending him back then, he basically did w/e he wanted all game long. It seems like everyone puts Jim Brown #1 all time just because everybody else does.

The list is down to 60 now. Randy Moss is 65. I wouldn’t be surprised if Cris Carter gets snubbed completely, he already got snubbed for the Hall of Fame a couple times.

[/quote]

Yeah, but the same could be said about today’s player playin back in the old days. For example if Manning or Brady played back when you could actually hit a QB how good would they be throwing?

and as far as Favre goes, and I’m a huge fan, sure he has a lot of records because he has played so long, but isn’t that a good thing? He’s played through how many injuries and what have you to win a ton of games. I mean he holds almost every QB record and could easily have one another MVP just last season. You can’t deny he’s a great QB that should be on the list. Top 25 at least imo. Oh and I think you mentioned in a previous post he has been sacked the most…why do you think that takes away from his status as a great player? Just curious. I would think that would be on the O-line more then him. [/quote]

Definitely a lot to be said for toughness and longevity, I’m not saying he’s a bad player.

My original point was that I hate these lists because nobody can decide on a criteria. When you make a list of the “best” players, how do you measure the best? Stats dont work because the level of play was much lower back then, like I pointed out with Jim Brown and Wilt. Same thing with relative “dominance”, there are so many more good players today that nobody is ever going to be as relatively dominant as Jim Brown was in his day. You can’t go by championships either, because you have guys like Dan Marino who were great themselves but played on shitty teams.

42

barry sanders HAS to be in ther top 15, he put up all those numbers playing for the detroit lions with a pop warner offensive line. my dad used to take me to the pontiac silverdome a few times a year, barry sanders would fill an 85000 seat stadium full of drunk whitetrash animals, reguardless how piss poor the team was. that man was amazing, not the best back of all time, but deffinatly higher then emmit smith based on ability and not accomplishments.

43

tom brady and sanchez should not be on a list of the top 50. Brady is a solid quarterback but isnt as gifted as at least 50 nfl quarterbacks to play the game,he has played on a dream team his entire career. Sanchez is showing promise but has only played one full season and has accomplished nothing. I would place warren moon much higher then both of these men.

44

This thread is turning into a book. Should we start adding chapters?

45

[quote]overstand wrote:
I get what you’re saying.

If you sent Adrian Peterson back in time hed do all the same things Jim Brown did, and probably a lot more. If you sent Jim Brown to the present and gave him all the benefits of modern medicine and training, would he still dominate like he did back then? He might be good, even great, but his numbers would still not compare proportionally to what he did in his day. He was that outrageous.

Same thing with Wilt, he might also dominate today, but he wouldn’t be putting up 100 point games or averaging 50 points a game.

So how do you compare Wilts 50ppg and 25 rpg with someone like Hakeem Olajuwon who might only average 20/10 yet still be considered dominant.

I’m not saying they are bad players, my point is its hard, maybe impossible, to compare players of different eras because the level of competition is so much different. Its not just that the players are bigger stronger and faster, there are 100x more of them. There is so much more money and so much more exposure for sports today that we will probably never see dominance of the likes of Jim Brown again. Thats why I think its unfair to call Jim Brown the greatest of all time, because the way the game is today, he will never be surpassed no matter how good someone is.
[/quote]

I still disagree with your point here. Why would Jim Brown not dominate the way he did today? He might dominate in a different way, maybe run differently and so on. But if he were on a run-heavy team, if he played for a team like Pittsburgh or Baltimore or the Jets or some other smash-mouth team, why wouldn’t he dominate the same way he did in his heyday? I’m not saying that he would duplicate the numbers he put up; I’m saying he would dominate in the same manner. He was the biggest, strongest, fastest guy in the NFL. Adrian Peterson is arguably as physically-talented in comparison to the rest of the league as Brown was, and not only does he not dominate in the same way Brown did, he isn’t even the best RB in the league right now.

What you’re essentially saying is that the biggest, strongest, fastest guy in the NFL today wouldn’t dominate the same way because the league is different. What I’m saying is that Jim Brown was the greatest because he dominated his own generation as much as he did. There have been plenty of other running backs who could lay claim to the title of “biggest, strongest, fastest” who didn’t dominate the same way Brown did. OJ, Earl Campbell, Adrian Peterson today, to name a few.

These players are greats (AP may prove to be one of the greats, but he’s nowhere near that level yet), but they don’t match up with Brown. Should he get discounted because he was so freakishly better than everyone else? Of course not. We wouldn’t discount a player’s greatness today if he was a super-freak. If Chris Johnson had the same speed he does now, but he was 20-30 lbs heavier, he’d be a freak. But if his career played out the way it has so far, we wouldn’t minimize his greatness because of his talent level.

THIS is what makes the greats the greats. There’s always some guy in the league who’s a super-freak. Look at Vernon Davis. Sure, he had a great year last year, one of the best ever for a TE. But overall his talent level hasn’t translated to “greatness”. The ability to turn that talent into domination over a career is what defines a Great Player. It’s pointless to say that IF Brown played today he wouldn’t dominate because the point is, when he DID play, he DID domiate like no other running back ever has, in any generation, in any league, under any type of conditions or league-wide offensive philosophies. When discussing who the greats are, ifs don’t mean anything, only dids. DID he dominate, not WOULD he or IF he played here or there or IF he played today and so on.

Also, about there being more players now. Sure, there are a lot of players and the talent pool is arguably bigger as a result. But you could also say that the talent pool has thinned out as well. There were only like 8 or 10 teams in the league when Brown played. So if there were the same amount of teams playing today, the talent would be much more concentrated than it is. Plus, it’s arguably even more thinned out because there are so many other sports now, on top of there being even more people playing these other sports. How many guys competing in MMA or any of these “extreme sports” or soccer or hockey would be playing football instead if those sports hadn’t taken off in popularity?

46

[quote]overstand wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]overstand wrote:
I hate these lists because nobody can ever decide on a criteria. A lot of the all time great old timers ie Johnny Unitas and Jim Brown were great back then and put up crazy stats but they’d get smoked if they tried to play today. Also I think Joe Montana is consensus best QB of all time (Payton Manning might pass him up by the time he retires) but a lot of QBs will be ranked higher than Dan Marino because he doesnt have a super bowl ring even though he was much better. And Brett Favre will probably be ranked way too high just because hes a likable guy and he has a few records, but they won’t mention he also has the record for most interceptions and most times sacked and only got the others through sheer volume of play.

and lol @ Mark Sanchez, he sucks [/quote]

^^ you, sir, are certifiably retarded if you think Jim Brown would “get smoked” today.

Also Bret Favre DOESN’T hold the NFL record for being sacked the most times… He’s 5th on that list. Oh and as far as “having a few records” goes… Try most passing yards ever and most TD passes ever… Yeah just a few little records there lol.

Number 1 should/will be Joe Montana. From there on it’s pretty subjective but in the top 5 should be Rice (I’d say number 2) Brown, Walter Payton and Laurence Taylor.

Not really sure how I would want to rank them but they were all amazing players. Have to put Chris Carter, Reggie White, berry Sanders and Dan Marino in the top 10.

FTR I am not a Brett favre fan. [/quote]

My point was Brett Favre only has the records because hes played for so god damn long. He has the good records but he has the bad ones too.

And Jim Brown might be able to play today, but he wouldn’t put up near the numbers he did back then. The reason he was so good is because he was the biggest fastest dude in the league. Today he’d be a run of the mill RB. Sort of like Wilt Chamberlain in basketball, dude has crazy stats but the game just wasn’t what it is today. There were no Dwight Howards defending him back then, he basically did w/e he wanted all game long. It seems like everyone puts Jim Brown #1 all time just because everybody else does.

The list is down to 60 now. Randy Moss is 65. I wouldn’t be surprised if Cris Carter gets snubbed completely, he already got snubbed for the Hall of Fame a couple times.

[/quote]

you do realize Jim Brown put up those numbers with 12 game seasons his first four years and 14 game seasons his last five?

47

[quote]theunionforever wrote:
tom brady and sanchez should not be on a list of the top 50. Brady is a solid quarterback but isnt as gifted as at least 50 nfl quarterbacks to play the game,he has played on a dream team his entire career. Sanchez is showing promise but has only played one full season and has accomplished nothing. I would place warren moon much higher then both of these men.[/quote]

Talent level doesn’t mean shit, only accomplishments. And there are few qbs whose accomplishments stack up to Brady’s. Think of the top ten Qbs of all-time. Who is the least physically-gifted? Joe Montana. Not a strong arm, not a big guy, moved well in the pocket and could buy time, but not a QB with good speed. Shit, he didn’t even have a quick release. But he GOT IT DONE, and that’s all that matters. Ryan Leaf and Jim Druckenmiller were more talented than half of the all-time great QBs. I wouldn’t place Warren Moon above Brady or about five or six QBs from his own era. I’d take Joe Montana, Jim Kelly, Elway, Marino, Aikman, Steve Young and maybe even Phil Simms over Moon. They GOT IT DONE more often and in bigger games than Moon did.

Look at Elway versus Marino. Both played on some seriously flawed teams in their day. But Elway GOT IT DONE and Marino didn’t, which is why Marino doesn’t make my top ten QBs of all-time and Elway is top five, even though Marino is above Elway in most significant statistical categories. In the words of Herman Edwards, you play to win the game. You don’t play to accumulate stats.

48

ryan leaf was a gifted athlete but didnt have the work ethic to make it in the nfl. saying he was more talented then any of those guys you mentioned is assuming that the NFL and college game are somehow similar. Joey harrington was amazing in college, and even though he was cursed bein drafted by the lions, his talent didnt cross over to the nfl despite playing in a westcoast offence in the pac 10.

49

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]theunionforever wrote:
tom brady and sanchez should not be on a list of the top 50. Brady is a solid quarterback but isnt as gifted as at least 50 nfl quarterbacks to play the game,he has played on a dream team his entire career. Sanchez is showing promise but has only played one full season and has accomplished nothing. I would place warren moon much higher then both of these men.[/quote]

Talent level doesn’t mean shit, only accomplishments. And there are few qbs whose accomplishments stack up to Brady’s. Think of the top ten Qbs of all-time. Who is the least physically-gifted? Joe Montana. Not a strong arm, not a big guy, moved well in the pocket and could buy time, but not a QB with good speed. Shit, he didn’t even have a quick release. But he GOT IT DONE, and that’s all that matters. Ryan Leaf and Jim Druckenmiller were more talented than half of the all-time great QBs. I wouldn’t place Warren Moon above Brady or about five or six QBs from his own era. I’d take Joe Montana, Jim Kelly, Elway, Marino, Aikman, Steve Young and maybe even Phil Simms over Moon. They GOT IT DONE more often and in bigger games than Moon did.

Look at Elway versus Marino. Both played on some seriously flawed teams in their day. But Elway GOT IT DONE and Marino didn’t, which is why Marino doesn’t make my top ten QBs of all-time and Elway is top five, even though Marino is above Elway in most significant statistical categories. In the words of Herman Edwards, you play to win the game. You don’t play to accumulate stats.[/quote]

Elway didn’t really ‘get it done’(at least, not moreso than Marino) until he got put with one of the sickest offensive lines ever assembled and a 2000 yard back, and Romanowski tore people apart on the other side of the ball.

Not arguing that Elway isn’t one of the best ever, but taking away Marino’s credit is(and always has been) unfair.

If Joe Namath is anywhere on the top 100 I’ll throw a fit.

50

[quote]red04 wrote:
Elway didn’t really ‘get it done’(at least, not moreso than Marino) until he got put with one of the sickest offensive lines ever assembled and a 2000 yard back, and Romanowski tore people apart on the other side of the ball.

Not arguing that Elway isn’t one of the best ever, but taking away Marino’s credit is(and always has been) unfair.

If Joe Namath is anywhere on the top 100 I’ll throw a fit.[/quote]

Yes. Fuck Elway.

51

[quote]WolBarret wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:
Elway didn’t really ‘get it done’(at least, not moreso than Marino) until he got put with one of the sickest offensive lines ever assembled and a 2000 yard back, and Romanowski tore people apart on the other side of the ball.

Not arguing that Elway isn’t one of the best ever, but taking away Marino’s credit is(and always has been) unfair.

If Joe Namath is anywhere on the top 100 I’ll throw a fit.[/quote]

Yes. Fuck Elway.
[/quote]

Elway got to five Super Bowls, Marino got to one. Elway may not have been the best player on his team anymore when he won two Super Bowls, but he outplayed both QBs when he did win, including Favre. I’d say that counts as getting it done, and certainly more than Marino. The one Super Bowl Marino got to he was thoroughly outplayed by Montana and he never got to another one.

52

and talent does mean shit. its not a players fault he is loyal to a bad team. this isnt the nba, it takes an enourmouse team effort to win superbowls, a team like the lions will never accomplish this untill they decide to open the pocket book. fuck the ford family for that. barry sanders in my opinion is the 2nd or third back of all time behind jim brown and maybe walter payton.

53


You know what they say about pictures…

54

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t get these people who are putting Cris Carter and Dan Marino and some of these others in the top ten. Cris Carter isn’t even top 50. Marino might be top 30. But there is no way those two belong in the same category as some of the players I’ve heard mentioned with them. I can think of a lot of quarterbacks who were greater than Marino. Hell, he wasn’t even the best of his generation. Montana and Elway rank higher than him.

And what about Unitas? Perhaps the only quarterback who can lay claim to the title of Greatest QB ever, other than Montana, Elway and maybe Favre. Shit, I’d put Elway, Montana, Favre, Brady, Manning, Starr, Unitas and maybe even a guy like Aikman and Young ahead of Marino.

Now with Carter, there’s only a couple of receivers who I think were better than him: Rice, Irvin, maybe Marvin Harrison or Randy Moss. But there’s a couple dozen offensive players outside of the receiver position I’d rank ahead of Carter. Payton, Sanders, Sayers, Emmitt Smith, OJ, Kellen Winslow, Larry Allen, Anthony Munoz, maybe a couple other offensive linemen I can’t think of right now, plus ALL of the QB’s mentioned above.

Then take into account defensive stalwarts like Ray Lewis, Reggie White, LT, Ronnie Lott, Woodson, Deion, half the fucking Steelers defense from the 70’s, Deacon Jones, Butkus and some others and there are a hell of a lot of players who should rank ahead of Carter and Marino.

Here’s my top twenty, with an obvious priority placed on QBs. They’re the most important position to a team’s success so they deserve a little higher spot than a lot of other players.

1.Jerry Rice
2.Jim Brown
3.Joe Montana
4.Johnny Unitas
5.Lawrence Taylor
6.John Elway
7.Dick Butkus
8.Walter Payton
9.Reggie White
10.Mean Joe Greene
11.Tom Brady
12.Barry Sanders
13.Brett Favre
14.Ray Lewis
15.Deacon Jones
16.Peyton Manning
17.Emmitt Smith
18.Kellen Winslow
19.Ronnie Lott
20.Bart Starr

I’m sure there’s some older guys I left out, but fuck 'em.[/quote]

Yea, Merlin Olsen and Sammy Baugh are two who come to mind. Good list tho

55

Bump

56

I was nearly named after Jerry Rive, Joe Montana and Steve Young. I was born in the San Francisco Bay January of '89.
I was very nearly Jerry Joe Steve Rice Montana Young Meehan.