Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I'm a Jets fan and even I think Namath was lucky to be on the list (Len Dawson/Dan Fouts/Jim Kelly/Warren Moon/Y.A.Tittle)
Dude I was like 6 and living in Pittsburgh and knew that Steve Largent was one of the best in the game. This is just silly.Dude -
The majority of NFL fans didn't even know he was. Dead serious. They were West Coast pre-ESPN dominance never on MNF and rarely good. Nobody played FF back then so nobody scoured stats like they were Bill James.
Every year the Honolulu would roll around and we'd be like, "Oh yeah, that cat in Seattle...he's good, right?"
Guess its a perception thing, and I am underrating him. But please, I promise you, nobody outside of the pacific northwest thought he was the best contemporaneously.
Well you obviously know what you're talking about. I think that Bear fan used Namath as a red-herring and just wanted to discuss that Urlacher should be on the list over Lewis.
It's like Dermontti Dawson never played. Webster is 68 and Dawson doesn't rank / ridiculous.
Thanks for compiling that. And thanks also to the other posters who broke up the list by position.Gotta say... I'm happy of course (as a Niner fan), to see Rice got the #1 spot... but am as surprised as I am happy. Jim Brown always gets #1 spot in those lists. I wonder what made this group go with Rice... Did the guys who chose this group discuss that?
The thing they said was that Rice was great for so long and his longevity was a key factor in the ranking.
If you're putting Namath on for the legend factor, then put Kill Bubba Kill* on it.Namath is one of the greatest characters in all of sports history, but not an all-time great QB.*Bubba Smith - great legend, one of the best college players ever, but not as dominant in the pros...but did lots of commercials.
In 1986...I clarified later I am referring to the pre-strike years (1976-81); he was not well known by any stretch, nor was he acknowledged by insiders/sharks as being the best WR in the game.Dude I was like 6 and living in Pittsburgh and knew that Steve Largent was one of the best in the game. This is just silly.Dude -
The majority of NFL fans didn't even know he was. Dead serious. They were West Coast pre-ESPN dominance never on MNF and rarely good. Nobody played FF back then so nobody scoured stats like they were Bill James.
Every year the Honolulu would roll around and we'd be like, "Oh yeah, that cat in Seattle...he's good, right?"
Guess its a perception thing, and I am underrating him. But please, I promise you, nobody outside of the pacific northwest thought he was the best contemporaneously.
Not sure if every team did it, but I remember the Vikings had an off-season charity basketball team (my cousin lived in St Paul). Did a Google search and came up with nothing on the Lions team - Charlie Sanders was the stud power forward - but I did find a Cleveland Browns article that also referenced a b-ball squad:And many of the Browns played on an exhibition basketball team that traveled Ohio and nearby states, playing about 50 to 60 games. Players could pick up an extra $50 to $70 per game.That is a great story. That WOULD NEVER happen in today's NFL. You can hardly get some players to interact with fans!Ha! That's awesome, thanks.Nobody remembers Wayne Walker, he started the year after Detroit won its last NFL Championship *(1958-72). Never missed a game. Used to be their FG kicker for years. Anyway, I met him at a charity basketball game. Hard to believe now, but back then the Lions would barnstorm across the state playing exhibition basketball games. It was a lot of Globetrotters type schtick. They played a group of townies (ex- local jocks and teachers), and he pulled me out of the stands during the first half to shoot a free throw. I made it, and they won by a single point.
That was back in the day when guys all had off season jobs. Can you imagine an NFL team putting together a charity basketball team that spent months traveling around by bus playing in high school gyms?
and they had the other guy named Curt Warner (sound)I was young and saw them living in NJ so i gotta figure people on the west coast saw him too.You're just way off on this. I'm 37 and grew up in the midwest. There was Steve Largent and the Seahawks were good and on TV plenty, then there was Art Monk, and then there was Jerry Rice. No one knew or cared about John Jefferson or Stanley Morgan or anyone else you listed (except maybe James Lofton but not thought of as better than Largent). Largent was the best in his day and that's just how it was. Doesn't have to do with scouring stats.Dude -
The majority of NFL fans didn't even know he was. Dead serious. They were West Coast pre-ESPN dominance never on MNF and rarely good. Nobody played FF back then so nobody scoured stats like they were Bill James.
Every year the Honolulu would roll around and we'd be like, "Oh yeah, that cat in Seattle...he's good, right?"
Guess its a perception thing, and I am underrating him. But please, I promise you, nobody outside of the pacific northwest thought he was the best contemporaneously.
I don't remember fans thinking one was so much better than the other.Both 8 times on the all-pro team and two defensive player of the year awards, all that while the other was playing. So voters were literally asking themselves Bruce or Reggie? often and it still came out even. And Smith playing for Washington when he seemed like he was eligible for social security is not how I remember him. Those two had so many sack if you took away 20-30 it wouldn't matter so I really don't see where that's a decent argument. Sorry but...
ironicI love when threads get so log....with so much useful information.
Same here.I love Namath as a Super Bowl champion and as The Icon of my favorite franchise, but he should be happy that he's anywhere on a list that includes Marino, Elway, Staubach, etc. He's not in their class.Looking at the list in its entirety, I'm mildly surprised that Marvin Harrison didn't make it, and very surprised that Largent didn't make it.I also think that Irvin being ranked as the #8 WR of all time is a stretch. Very glad to see Barry ranked ahead of Emmitt, but we all expected that.I'm a huge Rice fan, so I thought it was pretty cool that he got the #1 spot. If I was a betting man, I would've given Brown the best odds at being #1, followed by Montana, then Rice.
ironicI love when threads get so log....with so much useful information.Wheres Gates at TE? We can do this all day wheres who, why are they so low, bottom line is this list aint even fun to discuss because we know it is wayyyyy off.
Just as two points of reference:- When Sporting News selected its 100 Greatest NFL Players in 1999, Largent was #46 on their list.- Sean Lahman's Pro Football Historical Abstract published in 2008 ranked Largent as the 4th best WR of all time.
Yes, here are the QBs for the WRs in this top 100:Rice - Montana (HOFer) and Young (HOFer)Hutson - different era... tailbacks threw the ballBerry - Unitas (HOFer)Alworth - HadlMoss - many, but including Brady (future HOFer)Warfield - Griese (HOFer)Hirsch - Van Brocklin (HOFer)Irvin - Aikman (HOFer)Ignoring Hutson due to the completely different era, the only guy on the list who didn't play with a HOF QB is Alworth, but he played in Sid Gillman's offense. And Hadl was quite good, just not a HOFer.This is quite a contrast to Largent playing several years with Zorn and then closing out his career with Dave Krieg.
Seau wasn't even on the ballot. Pretty inexcusable IMO.
My memory is that Reggie White was generally regarded as the best defensive player of his era and generally regarded as a candidate for best defensive player of all time. I watched both of their careers, and my impression is that White is in the top tier of defensive players, and Smith is at least one tier below him.
It's perfectly reasonable for Dawson to be ranked below these three. And I'm not sure Dawson would even be in the top several OL candidates that didn't make it. He's not in the HOF, you know.There were only 12 OL total, which seems low. I thought Slater and Groza would make it, and Stephenson, Mix, and Roaf were other potential candidates.
As a Bears fan, I say replace the "Bears fan" portion of your statement with "uninformed fan". There are a lot of extremely intelligent Bears fans. There are also idiots, as with any fanbase. You'd get laughed off the airwaves on talk radio in Chicago with that guy's view.
And? There is more to the a great player than just their numbers. Numbers is all Moss has, since he is sorely lacking in intangibles. Heck, Michael Irvin's numbers are dwarfed by numerous WRs who didn't make this list, Harrison included, so see, it is not all about numbers. I just think it is strange that you want to put a player higher based on numbers you project him to end with, rather than the numbers he actually has right now.
Sure and Moss has much more than just his stats. He draws more double coverage than probably any WR in history. He makes slot receivers look all-world. Don't discount him being the only common piece on two NFL record breaking offenses (on different teams no less). He was the best offensive weapon in a 15-1 and 16-0 team. Moss makes an impact on every play because you have to account for him. He made Culpepper look great (and set an NFL record for total yardage for a QB), he made an out of football Cunningham have the best season of his entire career at age 35, he made Jeff George look good, and he was responsible for Brady breaking the NFL TD record. Wherever this guy goes NFL records for his team and QB seem to follow.Ghost Rider said:
In support of this point, I saw Jaworski on PTI yesterday, and he said he watched film of the Vikings game last week and the Patriots double covered Moss on all but 5 (IIRC) of his plays from scrimmage. So even though he had just 1 catch for 8 yards in that game, he had a significant positive impact on the rest of the offense.
IMHO R.Moss is luck to even be on this list when you consider all the other great WR that have played in the NFL (Largent/Joiner/Maynard/Biletnikoff/Bobby Mitchell/Monk/Lofton/Stallworth/Swann/Charley Taylor/Andre Reed/Tim Brown/C.Carter/etc.)
You are 100% right. I know their are morons in every fanbase. The majority of Bears fans I know are very well informed so I know this guy was an exception and not the norm. It still is pretty funny.NatronIsMean said:
Eh, the smart move would have been to not look at the football forum until you had watched it. You can't expect it to be kept quiet forever on the off chance that someone hasn't seen it yet and didn't want it spoiled.How about removing Rice from the title so as to not spoil it for those who had to record it because they couldn't watch such as myself.
That guy is why Bears ownership has it over the fans; loyal and gullible is a bad combination. Urlacher wouldn't make a top 250 list. Ray Lewis is the most relevant LB of the post LT era, imo.johnnyboy8102 said:
Urlacher while he's a good player doesn't get in HOF (IMHO) Derrick Brooks and Ray Lewis do which is why they were on the list and Urlacher wasn't
Yeah, I'll get right on that.Shame on me for not PM'ing every FBG personally to make sure they've seen the program.
That's a pretty good argument against the "Montana/Young made Rice what he was" bunch. Rice wasn't one of those guys who got a lot of jump balls thrown his way like Moss - he always was in a pattern (whether adjusted or planned). That's not to say his hands weren't otherwordly - there are probably reels and reels of highlight-catch films Rice made. It's hyperbole but it seems as if you only counted the passes he caught in stride across the middle, he'd still be one of the greats. How in the hell did he get open so often? My brother called him Caspar because he'd seemingly disappear when the ball was snapped only to reappear 20 yards downfield cradling the ball.I've been watching football since the late '60s and I've never seen anyone like Rice. I think sometimes his athletic abilities (natural talent) is overlooked or downplayed - he wasn't the fastest, but he wasn't slow either; his hand-eye coordination - if such a thing can be measured - must be off the charts. But his will to succeed, football IQ, and absolutely silly work ethic is what made him immortal.
Good post.I love the last point, but I feel compelled to throw LT in there.
Yeah, I caught that. Brown's never going to change.Did anybody think Brown's obvious dig at Franco Harris was below the belt? Sheesh his detest of Harris is running near 30 years. It almost reminds me of Frazier and Ali....
Yeah, it annoyed me quite a bit that the NN left that in. There was no need for the insult. I would have been much happier if they didn't rank him as the #1 RB.Did anybody think Brown's obvious dig at Franco Harris was below the belt? Sheesh his detest of Harris is running near 30 years. It almost reminds me of Frazier and Ali....
I have to agree.
What exactly did he say? I must have been out of the room for a second.Yeah, I caught that. Brown's never going to change.Did anybody think Brown's obvious dig at Franco Harris was below the belt? Sheesh his detest of Harris is running near 30 years. It almost reminds me of Frazier and Ali....
