NFL top 100 players

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Steve Young is a phony. he did jack squat when in Tampa except get traded. Then he moves to San Francisco which already had a top knotch team that was Montana's.

In MHO, Young is nothing. Young SUXs.

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

1. I sincerely hope you're not scouting for the Bills. If you are, it might explain a few things.

2. If that's your humble opinion, I'm scared to read ya when you're feeling a tad full of yourself.

3. Young and Montana were very different players and the 49ers offense had a distinctly different personality with Young at the helm. Still won a lot though.

4. Montana's career w/ 9ers spanned a decade. Young's career spanned 8 years. Think there might have been a bit of personnel turnover during those 18 years.

Including the head coach. Not that facts mean anything to someone who could call a QB with close to 100 career wins and a career QB rating in the 90s "nothing"

5. Is Corky a descriptive adjective or a noun? Just wondering. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=corky

 

Maybe its because I am biased but I think Jim Kelly should be on the list. I think they are at 20 now and both Marino and Elway have been listed so I know they wont put Kelly ahead of them.

 

 

Should he be considered one of the NFL's top 100 players of all time?

 

Help a girl out with a link to this List of Fame

[truth on hold]

Kelly, Bruce, Delamilure, OJ, Thurman, Reed, Hull ... should all be on the list.

 

What's telling is that only 1 of them was a defensive player.

[KRC]

Help a girl out with a link to this List of Fame

 

Here is the list for those who have not seen it...

 

NFL Films' Top 100 of All-Time

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Here is the list for those who have not seen it...

 

NFL Films' Top 100 of All-Time

 

Way too many active and recent players who couldn't kiss the shoelaces of some guys who are missing.

[R. Rich]

I have missed these shows so far (always intend to watch 'em, but never do), but if the top player isn't Jim Brown, then this list is garbage.

 

 

Yup. It's garbage.

[metzelaars_lives]

Kinda surprised no one's started a thread on this yet. For a real football historian like myself, I was way into it. Maybe someone did start a thread already, but guess what I didn't do a search and I don't really give a f***.

 

At any rate, here are my biggest gripes.

 

4. No way Randy Moss is as high as 65 and TO, Cris Carter and Marvin Harrison don't even make the list at all. Those 4 are VERY comparable. If Moss was 95 and he was the only one they picked I'd be OK with it.

 

3. Thurman's gotta be on there somewhere. 4 straight AFC Championships and only one player makes the list? Going into it, I would've thought he'd be somewhere in the 70's or so. Reggie White wasn't THAT much better than Bruce and OJ should've been higher as well. Bills were disrespected somewhat.

 

2. Really liked where they had the top QB's- Favre, Brady, Elway and Marino- in that order, but all close together. Steve Young should've been higher though and Johnny U should've been ahead of Montana. Really like how high they had Manning though and agree he's THAT good. Imagine if he wins a couple more Super Bowls and stays injury-free. He could supplant Rice one day. Incidentally, no question Jerry Rice is #1. Anyone who thinks Kelly deserved to be on that list is nuts. Top 200, yes.

 

1. HOW IN THE NAME OF GOD IS STEVE LARGENT NOT ON THE LIST!?!?!?! This is how crazy that is: When I saw he wasn't 100-11, I assumed he would be in the top 10! Going in, I would've said somewhere in the 20's. To be honest, the fact that Michael Irvin is on the list and Largent isn't, kind of de-legitimizes the whole thing. It's almost as if they made a mistake. Rice, Largent and Don Hutson are the 3 greatest receivers of all-time. Period end of story.

 

Oh yeah, and Metzelaars should've been on the list too.

[R. Rich]

Kinda surprised no one's started a thread on this yet. For a real football historian like myself, I was way into it. Maybe someone did start a thread already, but guess what I didn't do a search and I don't really give a f***.

 

I guess, in your anger, you failed to see the thread titled, "NFL's Top 100 Players". Had you seen/opened it, you would've seen that it was discussing this very topic.

[KRC]

The list is pretty much a joke. Jerry Rice is number one because he was just inducted into the HOF. If they would have done this list last year, Brown would have been number 1. Hutson was a better receiver. I won't even bother to go into the rest of the complaints I have with the list.

[R. Rich]

The list is pretty much a joke. Jerry Rice is number one because he was just inducted into the HOF. If they would have done this list last year, Brown would have been number 1. Hutson was a better receiver. I won't even bother to go into the rest of the complaints I have with the list.

 

 

Oh, I get it. Twelve months ago, Jim Brown was the best player of all time. I guess Jerry made a nice late push.

 

But Kenneth, I guess we do have to give 'em credit for a few things:

 

1. Including Hein on the list. I was sure he'd be a victim of Generation ESPN.

2. Putting Hutson in the Top 10. We are in agreement on his merits.

3. Having Unitas and Graham in the Top 20, though we both know they should be higher (no, we won't go there...) than where they ended up.

 

That's 'bout all I can come up w/ in terms of things to credit 'em for. Should we begin the laundry list of bad moves?

[Mr. WEO]

Oh, I get it. Twelve months ago, Jim Brown was the best player of all time. I guess Jerry made a nice late push.

 

But Kenneth, I guess we do have to give 'em credit for a few things:

 

1. Including Hein on the list. I was sure he'd be a victim of Generation ESPN.

2. Putting Hutson in the Top 10. We are in agreement on his merits.

3. Having Unitas and Graham in the Top 20, though we both know they should be higher (no, we won't go there...) than where they ended up.

 

That's 'bout all I can come up w/ in terms of things to credit 'em for. Should we begin the laundry list of bad moves?

Hutson ahead of Rice? Has anyone living seen Hutson play? We've all seen Rice throughout his career.

 

That's the problem with assessing these guys who wer done before, say, 1950 0r 960. The game is much different now--I would say more difficult for the offense given the size and speed of the defensive palyers and the complexity of the defensive schemes now.

 

Could Hutson, Slingin Sammy and some of the other old timers compete in today's game or do they get in because they dominated a game that no longer exists. Either way, they don't belong in the top 50.

 

Ray Lewis shouldn't be ahead of any of the QB's in the top 50.

[tennesseeboy]

I understand the argument that we shouldn't include players of the 40's and 50's, but they were included. And if you are including them there is no way that Otto Graham and Sammy Baugh don't deserve to be in the top 10 over Montana nad Unitas. Graham won far more titles than Montana and Unitas put together and Baugh dam near invented the modern passing game.

[R. Rich]

Hutson ahead of Rice? Has anyone living seen Hutson play? We've all seen Rice throughout his career.

 

All I can say is, when a wideout has 74 catches, 1,211 yards (a 16.4 per average), and 17 touchdowns in a season, it is impressive no matter when they do it. But, then think of having those kinda numbers in 1942, and it's beyond impressive.

 

That's the problem with assessing these guys who wer done before, say, 1950 0r 960. The game is much different now--I would say more difficult for the offense given the size and speed of the defensive palyers and the complexity of the defensive schemes now.

 

 

It's all relative. Guys like Baugh and Hutson were terrific athletes (as shown by their all round play; Baugh as a punter, Hutson as a defensive back) and, if they played in this era, would train THE SAME WAY TODAY'S ATHLETES TRAIN. People always blast these guys for not going up against the kinda size/speed that today's athlete does. Well, for their era, that's exactly what they did. You think that if Jim Brown had access to the kinda training advances of today that he wouldn't be even better? That's scary, considering the guy won EIGHT rushing titles in his nine year career. Conversely, the athletes of today would not only be w/out the current training advances, but would also be privy to the same rules (leg whipping, practically beating up receivers ALL THE WAY DOWN THE FIELD, etc.) were they to have played back in those days. It's really tough to say what would happen if we took the athletes out of one era and put 'em into another.

[KRC]

Hutson ahead of Rice? Has anyone living seen Hutson play? We've all seen Rice throughout his career.

 

Watch the game films from that era. Hutson was definitely better than Rice. Rice was dominant. Hutson was more dominant.

 

That's the problem with assessing these guys who wer done before, say, 1950 0r 960. The game is much different now--I would say more difficult for the offense given the size and speed of the defensive palyers and the complexity of the defensive schemes now.

 

The offense also has the luxury of only being touched for the first five yards. After that...hands off. People only want to say "well, they couldn't play in today's game because it is different." The same can be said of taking today's players and putting them back in time. They would not have the luxury of having a 10-yard run, then taking a few plays off to get their wind back. They wouldn't have the luxury of not being on the field on a change of possession (only offense/defense and not playing in all three aspects of the game). They would be mugged on every play. They would be pounded from every direction. Breathing on QB gets you 15 yards? I don't think so. Bigger...stronger...faster... It would be completely negated.

 

 

Could Hutson, Slingin Sammy and some of the other old timers compete in today's game or do they get in because they dominated a game that no longer exists. Either way, they don't belong in the top 50.

 

They absolutely could. Saying otherwise shows that you never watched them.

 

 

Look, people say that you cannot compare across eras. That is BS. You absolutely can. You look at the relative dominance of the player against their contemporaries. Then you can compare the relative dominances across eras. Stats are great for fantasy geeks, but we are talking real football and not fantasy. Stats without context are meaningless. They also do not take into account the intangibles that make a player special. Take Otto Graham for example. He was awesome. You never saw him get flustered. He could methodically pick apart a defense at any time throughout the game. His team knew it. The opposition knew it. A true leader. Stuff like that does not show up in football encyclopedias.

 

Oh, I get it. Twelve months ago, Jim Brown was the best player of all time. I guess Jerry made a nice late push.

 

But Kenneth, I guess we do have to give 'em credit for a few things:

 

1. Including Hein on the list. I was sure he'd be a victim of Generation ESPN.

2. Putting Hutson in the Top 10. We are in agreement on his merits.

3. Having Unitas and Graham in the Top 20, though we both know they should be higher (no, we won't go there...) than where they ended up.

 

That's 'bout all I can come up w/ in terms of things to credit 'em for. Should we begin the laundry list of bad moves?

 

Not enough bandwidth to cover the issues.

[Mr. WEO]

Watch the game films from that era. Hutson was definitely better than Rice. Rice was dominant. Hutson was more dominant.

 

 

 

The offense also has the luxury of only being touched for the first five yards. After that...hands off. People only want to say "well, they couldn't play in today's game because it is different." The same can be said of taking today's players and putting them back in time. They would not have the luxury of having a 10-yard run, then taking a few plays off to get their wind back. They wouldn't have the luxury of not being on the field on a change of possession (only offense/defense and not playing in all three aspects of the game). They would be mugged on every play. They would be pounded from every direction. Breathing on QB gets you 15 yards? I don't think so. Bigger...stronger...faster... It would be completely negated.

 

 

 

 

They absolutely could. Saying otherwise shows that you never watched them.

 

 

Look, people say that you cannot compare across eras. That is BS. You absolutely can. You look at the relative dominance of the player against their contemporaries. Then you can compare the relative dominances across eras. Stats are great for fantasy geeks, but we are talking real football and not fantasy. Stats without context are meaningless. They also do not take into account the intangibles that make a player special. Take Otto Graham for example. He was awesome. You never saw him get flustered. He could methodically pick apart a defense at any time throughout the game. His team knew it. The opposition knew it. A true leader. Stuff like that does not show up in football encyclopedias.

 

 

 

Not enough bandwidth to cover the issues.

I don't believe putting Jim Brown in today's gym makes him a much better athlete--the guy was a rare physical specimen. Today's game is still pretty physical, I would say, although it doesn't have as much of the non-essential contact you describe in the past.

 

I haven't seen many films of entire games of the players through a whole season, season after season, as you have. I have seen highlite films because that's all I assumed existed of guys like Hutson. I not sure where you would have access to so much regular game film. But anyway, bigger-faster-stronger are not negated simply by saying so. Hutson dominated his defenders likely becuase they were not nearly as athletic as him or as the average NFL player today. Getting pounded by a stout 200 lb D-lineman or LB is not the same as getting jacked up by a lightning quick 280 pounder play after play. Back then how many kids played football? How many big college programs were there. Compare that to today. The pool of athletes who have spent their entire youth playing organized football is orders of magnitude greater than it was then. The NFL is picking from a rarified, carefully cultivated crop. I would guess most of the guys playing in the 30's and 40's don't fall into this category, to put it mildly.

 

Not saying they aren't great or don't belong on the list. They just don't go up at the top with many of the modern players.

 

Same can easily be said for such NBA and MLB lists.

[Hsp08]

I love Kelly but he's not close to the great QBs. Maybe top 20 but that might be a stretch. He played on one of the top 2 or 3 groups of offensive talent ever. It's not a cincidence that Reich could come in and the offense didn't miss a beat. Also, Kelly was a bad playoff QB. Except for a handful of games, he often played subpar but luckily we had enough talent to carry us over the top.

 

Again, I love the guy for his leadership and toughness but guys like Bruce, OJ, and Thurman are arguably top 10 players at their positions. Kelly isn't in that group for QBs IMO.

 

 

 

 

I may have only been 9 at the time but I don't know why Thurman Thomas didn't get more carries in that game. Why force throws against a 2 man d line?

 

 

And How is Tarkenton in the Top 100 but Kelly isn't?

 

Regarding SBXXV, Marv Levy's coaching staff didn't know what half time adjustments mean...they were thoroughly out-coached....we obviously had the best team that year.