10 greatest players of all time...

[Rico]

Then again, maybe you missed THIS:

 

 

 

Sometimes circumstance plays a part in a player's career. The 49ers were so successful when Young first arrived they weren't about to start him over Joe even if he might have been better. Why mess with the chemistry? In later seasons it was clear the guy on the bench (Young) was better than the guy on the field (Montana). And by all accounts Montana was still pretty freaking good at that time.

 

Joe did not yield gracefully, unfortunately, and was a bit of a whiner when he was replaced. Still, after some time passed, he was wise enough to recognize that Young was the more skilled QB, as you can see from the quote above.

 

 

EDIT: One more thing (and I know you will just love this, Rico) Peyton Manning belongs on that list. No question.

True, sometimes circumstance plays a part in a player's career.

Maybe Ernie Davis ends up being one of the all-time greats if he didn't die.

Maybe JP Losman ends up being a solid NFL QB if he only had more time.

But the bottom line is that maybes and what-ifs don't count.

Joe was the starter for the end of his prime, Young rode the bench and watched Joe for the beginning of his prime.

That is fact. And winning trumps any and all other stats, that is also fact.

 

No doubt P-Gump (Big Game Chump) belongs in the Hall-of-Fame, alongside Marino, Fouts, and Moon... looking up at Joe.

[tennesseeboy]

Art Shell of Oakland was an outstanding offensive lineman. I think I'd have to put Lawrence Taylor on as the greatest outsid Linebacker..as someone said he was by definition a game changer.

[dave mcbride]

You put Bonds back in the Ruth era and he would dominate. You bring Ruth into today's baseball, he would not dominate.

Ruth never had to play under the death threats that Bond or Aaron had to as well.

 

People weren't making death threats to Aaron in his prime, so I don't understand how that's relevant. As for putting Bonds in the 1920s, I don't think that's possible because he wasn't actually alive. Same goes for Ruth in the 1990s-2000s. He was dead. Since counterfactual arguments run counter to actual facts, I like to stick to evaluating players in the context they played in.

 

I do think that Bonds was probably his equal as a hitter, but Ruth was near-dominant pitcher as well (94-46 lifetime). No one else can claim that. Moreover, in the stat that counts most, Ruth still sits at #1: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/...ng_career.shtml.

[Conch]

he wasn't.

Butkus didn't use steroids tho.

[Conch]

People weren't making death threats to Aaron in his prime, so I don't understand how that's relevant. As for putting Bonds in the 1920s, I don't think that's possible because he wasn't actually alive. Same goes for Ruth in the 1990s-2000s. He was dead. Since counterfactual arguments run counter to actual facts, I like to stick to evaluating players in the context they played in.

 

I do think that Bonds was probably his equal as a hitter, but Ruth was near-dominant pitcher as well (94-46 lifetime). No one else can claim that. Moreover, in the stat that counts most, Ruth still sits at #1: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/...ng_career.shtml.

The ball Ruth constantly hit out of the park wasn't juiced like Bonds or Bonds' balls. And add in eight more games in a season and Ruth gets almost one more year of play. He would have had 1000 if he played later in the century and never pitched.

[The Dean]

No doubt P-Gump (Big Game Chump) belongs in the Hall-of-Fame, alongside Marino, Fouts, and Moon... looking up at Joe.

 

 

[Alaska Darin]

Butkus are not deserving to be on this list.

[uforesircher]

I wasn't overly surprised about his inclusion, but nonetheless, anytime a former Bill is included i any list its great. Just makes you long for those days again. Anyways, here is the top 10:

 

1) Jerry Rice

2) Jim Brown

3) Johnny Unitas

4) Joe Montana

5) Reggie White

6) Bruce Smith

7) Lawrence Taylor

8) Dick Butkus

9) Anthony Munoz

10) Joe Greene

 

you can read the full article here: Top 10 NFL Players of All Time

 

can't really argue with the names in the top 10. but i would have placed them in a different order i think. something like this:

 

1) Jim Brown

2) Joe Montana

3) Johnny Unitas

4) Jerry Rice

5) Bruce Smith

6) Reggie White

7) Anthony Munoz

8) Joe Greene

9) Dick Butkus

10) Lawrence Taylor

[DC Tom]

Just curious...have any of you ranking Montana over Unitas ever seen Unitas play?

 

Because I would have - I thought Montana was the greatest QB ever, until I saw him play (on ESPN Classic or some such). Unitas was phenomenal...he played at a completely different level than the other players of his time. Even coming off the bench in SB III, at the end of his career, he looked like a man among boys.

[KRC]

Just curious...have any of you ranking Montana over Unitas ever seen Unitas play?

 

That's not a requirement, is it?

[The Dean]

Where's Brett Favre on this list?

 

What about Teddy Bruschi?

 

[Green Lightning]

Butkus and Greene are not deserving to be on this list. I'm not even sure he is the best Chicago Bear of all time with Sayers, Payton, and Singletary also in that discussion. Hell Ray Lewis is probably better. Larry Allen is the best offensive guard and possibly offensive lineman of all time. John Hannah and Walter Jones dominated there position far greater than Greene dominated his. Ronnie Lott should also be in the discussion of top 10.

 

 

It's easy to put modern players ahead of the old timers, but if you think Butkis wasn't the best you probably never saw him play. His intensity and power and focus on destroying anyone in his way was what a linebacker was all about. He defined the position and there was nobody tougher, better or more durable in his era. Like LT, when he was on the field, the offence took note of where he was and feared to go there.

[Thoner7]

You may have missed this:

 

 

 

Then consider he did all that despite spending his first two years with the hapless Bucs and the next five backing up Montana.

 

I agree. Its hard to put Montana in the top 10 when Young was better than him.

[OCinBuffalo]

....and no Tom Brady.

 

So much for being as good as/better than Montana. Glad to see people have finally come to their senses.

[Greybeard]

People weren't making death threats to Aaron in his prime, so I don't understand how that's relevant. As for putting Bonds in the 1920s, I don't think that's possible because he wasn't actually alive. Same goes for Ruth in the 1990s-2000s. He was dead. Since counterfactual arguments run counter to actual facts, I like to stick to evaluating players in the context they played in.

 

I do think that Bonds was probably his equal as a hitter, but Ruth was near-dominant pitcher as well (94-46 lifetime). No one else can claim that. Moreover, in the stat that counts most, Ruth still sits at #1: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/...ng_career.shtml.

 

 

The problem with this thread is some interpret it as best physical skills and some view it as what they did against their peers. Face it, the modern athlete is beyond anything that came before, so the present has an advantage. However, you can really only judge an athlete against his peers, because his/her peers should be the best at what they do at the time. Using that criteria, Babe Ruth was far beyond his peers. And this may be in any sport.

 

Personally, putting Bonds in the conversation is a joke. There are players who were not drug enhanced that had great careers that would serve as better examples. Griffey would be a modern one. But if I was to make an argument against Ruth, the player that comes next would be Ted Williams.

 

 

Football wise, I would have thought Barry Sanders deserves consideration. Yes I know not great stats. But what running back had a career as good playing with a team that bad. IMO, put him on the Bills instead of OJ and he gains 20 to 50% more yards.

 

If you consider track and field, Jim Thorpe and Jesse Owens were far ahead of their competition. Both all time great athletes. Put them in modern competition, and they don't even get invited. Certainly doesn't diminish what they accomplished.

[PushthePile]

Level of competition, for one. Ruth played when blacks played in the Negro league. Arguably he never faced some the best baseball players of his age.

 

Also, I believe ground rule doubles counted as home runs when Ruth played.

 

Ruth didn't bat against an assortment of fresh relief pitchers.

 

Need any more reasons why SOME people might thing he wasn't the best player ever?

1. Level of competition? Baseball in the 20s was made up of 16 teams, as compared to 30 teams in the modern era. We all agree that a number of great negro league players would have flourished if given the chance but it doesn't make your argument true. The modern era has created a slightly watered down product, especially in terms of pitching.

 

2. I've never heard of that ground rule double fun fact. Thanks for bringing it up, I like that kind of stuff. I don't think you can make a case with it against the Babe though. How many ground rule doubles off of 1920s grass fields do you honestly think he racked up?

 

3. Ruth didn't bat against an assortment of relief pitchers but he played in an era DOMINATED by pitching. An era in which he hit more HRs than some teams. Pitchers threw from a more elevated position and threw just as hard as they do today. Today the mound is dropped, the pitching staffs are thin, and players/baseballs are juiced.

 

The best way to grade all-time players is to look at what they did compared to others of their era. Nobody dominated like the Babe did.

[PushthePile]

The problem with this thread is some interpret it as best physical skills and some view it as what they did against their peers. Face it, the modern athlete is beyond anything that came before, so the present has an advantage. However, you can really only judge an athlete against his peers, because his/her peers should be the best at what they do at the time. Using that criteria, Babe Ruth was far beyond his peers. And this may be in any sport.

 

Personally, putting Bonds in the conversation is a joke. There are players who were not drug enhanced that had great careers that would serve as better examples. Griffey would be a modern one. But if I was to make an argument against Ruth, the player that comes next would be Ted Williams.

 

 

Football wise, I would have thought Barry Sanders deserves consideration. Yes I know not great stats. But what running back had a career as good playing with a team that bad. IMO, put him on the Bills instead of OJ and he gains 20 to 50% more yards.

 

If you consider track and field, Jim Thorpe and Jesse Owens were far ahead of their competition. Both all time great athletes. Put them in modern competition, and they don't even get invited. Certainly doesn't diminish what they accomplished.

Agreed. Willie Mays belongs in every all-time discussion as well.

[Alaska Darin]

Level of competition, for one. Ruth played when blacks played in the Negro league. Arguably he never faced some the best baseball players of his age.

The glory years of the Negro League were AFTER Ruth retired.

Also, I believe ground rule doubles counted as home runs when Ruth played.

Also true - but the rules were also that balls that hit the foul pole were foul and balls that left the park fair and hooked around the foul pole were foul. One book I read analyzed every at bat he took when he set the record and deduced that he'd have hit 104 home runs instead of 60 if the modern rule book and stadium dimensions were in use.

 

He also played in places like the Polo Grounds (his home park), where the Center Field fence was 500 feet from home plate. If ground rule doubles counting as homers was such a feet, there would have been more players with homer numbers similar to Ruth's. There aren't.

 

His slugging percentage is almost 70 points higher than the second best in history. His OPS is 50 points higher and over 100 points higher than this era's best player, Albert Pujols.

Ruth didn't bat against an assortment of fresh relief pitchers.

True - but he also didn't get to play against the watered down pitching that goes today (only the best teams have 2 or 3 top starters) or in an era when baseball didn't get all of the best athletes.

Need any more reasons why SOME people might thing he wasn't the best player ever?

I'm still waiting for one. Ruth was far and away the best baseball player (and probably American professional athlete), no matter what measure anyone takes. There's a hell of a line for who is second but Ruth is clearly number 1.

[sharper802]

Butkus was dominant at his position and deserves to be there. Sounds like you never saw him play?

 

If I were a GM and Joe Greene, John Hannah, and Walter Jones were all on the draft board I would pick Joe Greene and I would sprint to the podium to do it. Don't get me wrong, Hannah and Jones were great players but Greene was a game changer.

 

Larry Allen? I have to chuckle at that one.

Chuckle at Larry Allen? Maybe that is because he played a season or two too long but he is the best guard to ever play in the NFL.

Greene may not have even been the best player on his defense.

[sharper802]

It's easy to put modern players ahead of the old timers, but if you think Butkis wasn't the best you probably never saw him play. His intensity and power and focus on destroying anyone in his way was what a linebacker was all about. He defined the position and there was nobody tougher, better or more durable in his era. Like LT, when he was on the field, the offence took note of where he was and feared to go there.

 

Jim Kelly said the same thing about Zac Thomas. What offense doesn't take note of where the MLB is?

I am not saying he wasn't great and it is difficult to compare era to era but there is no way he was as athletic or fast as Singletary or Ray Lewis and they hit just as hard and were just as feared.