Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Green's pretty much the anti-Motley, eh? 20 years, 1 PB IIRC.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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.
"100 Greatest Players" on NFLN - (List is in original post) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Raider Nation
- Start date
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
7 Pro Bowls. 4 times All-Pro.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
For so long I was surprised to see Green only was an AP first-team All-Pro once in his career; now it appears my memory's gone the other way. 7 Pro Bowls, 4 first team All-Pro selections, 1 first-team AP All-Pro.
Insein
Footballguy
True but I think they will lean towards offense in the top 5. Taylor should make the top 20 though no question.
Koya
Footballguy
Top TWENTY?I dont know ANYONE in NFL circles who has really studied the game that would have LT as ANYTHING lower than the top 10. He is a consensus (or close) greatest defensive player ever. He is a near unanimous best LB ever. Many argue he is the greatest single player, most dominant single player and one of the most influential and game changing players EVER.Having him lower than the top 5 would surprise and really even shock me. To have him outside the top ten would render this list utterly worthless.
Insein
Footballguy
Don't get me wrong. When I say Top 20, I mean they usually are partial towards Offense in these things. There's no way LT could be left out of the top 20. I personally think he's about 8th overall all time. Right behind Reggie for me personally.
Koya
Footballguy
My point is there is zero chance he is out of the top ten, and I can't see the player whom would likely garner most votes as best Defensive player ever being out of the top 5. Im surprised if he is outside the top 5, Id be utterly shocked if he were outside the top 10.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
New episode just starting. Number 70 to number 61. Starts off tonight with Marshall Faulk.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
WOW. This is the first real shocker to me. Randy Moss at #65?! For arguably the 2nd-best WR ever?
Something doesn't add up.
Something doesn't add up.
Koya
Footballguy
Seems to me that Faulk was the better player than Moss. Then again, I feel Faulk has been criminally underestimated, even considering the props that he receives.
Carver
Footballguy
The whole thing is worthless to me now. Way to go "experts".
johnnyboy8102
Footballguy
Which WR could possibly still be on the list now?RiceHutsonAlworthLargentI'm not saying I think Alworth and Largent are better than Moss but these are the only 4 I could think of that would still be on the list now that they set the bar so high.
Carver
Footballguy
Carver
Footballguy
Only Rice should be higher. No case for anyone else IMO.
Clarkmeister
Footballguy
LOL for CLEARLY the 2nd best WR to ever play going at #65. What a terrible joke this makes of the whole list.
Faulk is obviously going to be behind a number of backs that he was better than also. But Moss is a travesty. Should be top 20.
Faulk is obviously going to be behind a number of backs that he was better than also. But Moss is a travesty. Should be top 20.
Clarkmeister
Footballguy
This. Moss is closer to Rice than he is to #3.
johnnyboy8102
Footballguy
I'm pretty sure 2004-2006 hurts him a little in things like this.
Also, in addition to the other 4 I listed I'm sure Harrison will be on the list.
Don Hutson was so far ahead of his peers when he played that he was obviously going to be listed ahead of Moss.
Also, in addition to the other 4 I listed I'm sure Harrison will be on the list.
Don Hutson was so far ahead of his peers when he played that he was obviously going to be listed ahead of Moss.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
Gotta be Moss's attitude/slacking that turned off some voters.
BTW, Raiders are all over this list now! Unfortunately, most of them played a million years ago.
BTW, Raiders are all over this list now! Unfortunately, most of them played a million years ago.
johnnyboy8102
Footballguy
Agreed. I wasn't naming any players who I personally thought were better than Moss. I was just trying to put myself in the minds of the voters.Gotta be Moss's attitude/slacking that turned off some voters.BTW, Raiders are all over this list now! Unfortunately, most of them played a million years ago.
Native
Footballguy
1) I like the Lee Roy Selmon and Bobby Bell selections. Two great athletes that are often overlooked by this generation.
2) Didnt feel that Marcus Allen belonged on this list. He had one superb season followed by a number of years where he was above average but not elite.
3) Im also of the opinion that Moss should be way higher. After Jerry Rice and Don Hutson but before just about every other WR.
2) Didnt feel that Marcus Allen belonged on this list. He had one superb season followed by a number of years where he was above average but not elite.
3) Im also of the opinion that Moss should be way higher. After Jerry Rice and Don Hutson but before just about every other WR.
johnnyboy8102
Footballguy
I also thought Derrick Brooks was a little low at #97. Love the Bobby Bell pick. A top-5 OLB of all time.
johnnyboy8102
Footballguy
So far only 3 active players:
88- Ed Reed
65- Randy Moss
61- LaDainian Tomlinson
88- Ed Reed
65- Randy Moss
61- LaDainian Tomlinson
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
I feel like I keep saying so-and-so is too low. But LT at #61? Is that fair?
I need to see the RBs ahead of him.
I need to see the RBs ahead of him.
Native
Footballguy
Not crazy about the Darrell Green selection. I loved watching the guy play but I didnt see him as the best player on the field for the Redskins. Not by a large margin. Riggins was better. Manley and Mann were better. At least 2 or 3 of the Hogs were better. He was a fast, super-effort guy that was well respected by peers but I wouldnt call him one of the 100 best players of all time. Sounds like revisionist history for me. This is a guy that didnt record more than 3 INT's for his first ELEVEN years.
VaTerp
Footballguy
COMPLETELY DISAGREE with this.For one the bolded part is flat out wrong. Green had 5 ints in his 2nd and 4th years and is 18th all time. Secondly, INTs don't tell the whole story as great cover guys often don't have nearly as many passes thrown their way as their counterparts do.Native said:
As a lifelong Redskin fan I consider Darrell Green to have been better than Manley, Mann, and even Riggins. Green was great in coverage and despite his small frame also played the run well, and when the Skins needed a big play on defense he came through time and time again. Joe Gibbs said he would have been the best punt returner in the league if he used him there more but he was too valuable on defense. As a rookie the 6'4 Randy Moss said that the 5'9 Green, 38 at the time, was the best corner he faced all year.
At 5'9 and 180 lbs he was a COMPLETE football player, did everything a DB is asked to do, and did it at a VERY HIGH level for 20 years. Green is without question one of the 100 greatest players of all time IMO and there is no revisionist history needed to make that argument.
ETA- Green was a 4 time ALL-PRO, 7 time pro-bowler, and voted to the NFL All Decade team for the 90s. Riggins, Manley, Mann, and None of the Hogs or any other Redskin from the 80s and 90s can claim those accolades. You are SERIOUSLY off on your recollection of Green's career. He is one of the best corners to ever put on a uniform.
Last edited by a moderator:
BoerumHill
Footballguy
Don Hutson was the Babe Ruth of Wide Receiver; he defined the End position, changed the way the league played football.From an article a few years ago:
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
The problem with any of these lists is that older players are given so much more weight than modern players - when it should be the reverse. Randy Moss at 65 is about the worst selection I have ever seen. I was equally shocked to see Tomlinson and Faulk in this latest bracket. I fail to see how eras where NFL Championship Teams with multiple HOFers (like the 1962 Packers with 10 HOFers) get beat by college all star teams should receive the same weight as modern teams. The equivalent feat in today's game would be last year's first and second round draft picks beating a Pro bowl team. The idea just seems ludicrous but this happened relatively frequently from the 1930s to early 1960s.
I am all for respecting those who shoulders the game was built upon but give me a break. Rice is #1, Moss is #2. Hutson was dominant for his era - the most dominant WR ever - but does anyone really think he would outplay Rice or Moss if he played today? I suppose "greatest" may not be the same thing as "best". The greatest RB may be Jim Brown - but I wouldn't call him the best. I feel the same way about Hutson.
I am all for respecting those who shoulders the game was built upon but give me a break. Rice is #1, Moss is #2. Hutson was dominant for his era - the most dominant WR ever - but does anyone really think he would outplay Rice or Moss if he played today? I suppose "greatest" may not be the same thing as "best". The greatest RB may be Jim Brown - but I wouldn't call him the best. I feel the same way about Hutson.
Manster
Footballguy
see your point, but the great ones can play in any era. some old the old timers might not have been as great in todays era, but then again, give them todays training methods, etc......... who knows. i'd guess they'd maybe be just as dominant.
the old timers didnt have steroids, or performance enhancing substances, at least not to the extent that stuff is available today. they played with injuries. you might say they were tougher.
some guys get weighted on being trailblazers at their positions. it's not all about pure athletic ability and stats. im good with that.
the old timers didnt have steroids, or performance enhancing substances, at least not to the extent that stuff is available today. they played with injuries. you might say they were tougher.
some guys get weighted on being trailblazers at their positions. it's not all about pure athletic ability and stats. im good with that.
Last edited by a moderator:
You both forgot Ken Houston.
dgreen
Footballguy
You're probably thinking of Riggins. Riggins only had one PB (1975) and one AP selection (1983).For so long I was surprised to see Green only was an AP first-team All-Pro once in his career; now it appears my memory's gone the other way. 7 Pro Bowls, 4 first team All-Pro selections, 1 first-team AP All-Pro.
Koya
Footballguy
NO WAY is LT2 a better player than Faulk. Faulk was an absolutely electric runner, exceptional blocker and a damn good WR when needed as well. He was the glue for the "Greatest Show on Turf"
LT2 was one of the better runners of all time, one of the better RBs of all time, but I don't have him at Faulks level. Now, had LT2 not broken down and had E. Smith longevity, then an argument could have been made - but that does not appear to be the case.
LT2 was one of the better runners of all time, one of the better RBs of all time, but I don't have him at Faulks level. Now, had LT2 not broken down and had E. Smith longevity, then an argument could have been made - but that does not appear to be the case.
Touchdown Syndrome
Footballguy
I sort of agree.Faulk is probably the 2nd best RB I ever saw after Barry, but LT2 was very, very close.As has been mentioned, it looks like active players are going to be a bit "penalized" on this list.Randy Moss at 65 is certainly a head-scratcher....evidently his "attitude" and Oakland days count against him big time.Just off the top of my head, Hutson, Largent, Harrison, Alworth and Rice are WRs that are still upcoming. (LOL at someone mentioning Lofton)
dgreen
Footballguy
I'm ok with Hutson, Largent, Alworth, and Rice being ahead of Moss, but Harrison better not be.
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
Yeah, I understand the trailblazing part - but the whole nutrition/training thing only goes so far to leveling the playing field, overall competition is much more important. I consider the mid 1970's as the true formation of modern football.I have a really hard time placing players that played a majority of their careers prior to the mid 1970s above dominant players who played after 1975. If I disregard era then I would have to put Hutson, Brown, Butkus, Motley, Thorpe, Nagurski etc. etc. high on any GOAT list - but I don't think that Hutson is better than Moss or Rice. I don't think Brown is better than Payton or Sanders. I don't think Butkus is better than Lewis or Taylor etc. etc. Here is my reasoning: 1) The league wasn't fully integrated until the 1970s. For a long time teams carried an even number of black players so that white players didn't have to room with a black teammate when the team traveled. The Redskins didn't even have a black player on their team until Bobby Mitchell was traded to them from the Browns in the early 1960s.2) The league wasn't really professional. The money wasn't there to provide year round training nor draw the best athletes. Even in the early 1970s players held down jobs in the offseason because "pro" football didn't generate enough income for them to live on. The majority of teams prior the to 1950s went out of business.3) PEDs hadn't become widely known until the 1970s. I don't like the use of PEDs but players are much bigger, stronger, and faster - but the field isn't any bigger and clean players are at a disadvantage. This point is invalid if you assume everyone is clean or everyone is using PEDs - but I don't believe either of those cases.For anecdotal evidence here are two prime examples.1) There used to be a game called the Chicago Charities All Star game. It pitted a college all star team against the NFL Championship team in an annual game. The game started in the mid 1930s and ended in the 1970s. From inception until 1963 the college team won about 1/3 of the games. The last team to lose to the college players was the 1962 Packers - with 10 HOFers. You would be hard pressed to find 10 surefire HOFers on a pro bowl team. For decades the evidence suggests that the pro game was 1/2 a step above the college game. How competitive could the pro game be if 10 HOFers are beat by some college players?2) Jim Taylor (who beat Jim Brown for a rushing title) ran for 1474 yards at 5.4 YPC and scored 19 TDs - in only 14 games. Right now, there isn't a single white RB starting in the NFL as the featured back. We haven't seen a white RB break 1000 yards in 25 years (even with 16 game seasons). I don't think we have seen a white RB break 1000 yards and 5.0 YPC since Csonka (but I admit this is just going off of memory - I could very well be wrong). I *think* the last white RB to lead the league in rushing was Taylor. Now, evidence would suggest that Taylor wouldn't even start in today's NFL in anything besides a blocking role. The population of the US is bigger, football is more popular than it ever has been, and it isn't like there isn't an incentive to playing RB in the NFL but not a single white RB can win a starting job.Modern players are competing against higher quality opponents across the board. This isn't to say someone like Jim Brown, or Bobby Mitchell, or Gale Sayers wouldn't be great in today's game - but I feel I need to take a critical look at their stats. Do I think Jim Brown would have a HOF career if he started playing in 1980 or 1990? Yes, definitely. Do I think he would average 5.2 YPC? No. Do I think he would win rushing titles 8 of 9 seasons? No. Do I think he would be the best back in the league? I think he would be in the discussion, but I don't think he would be head and shoulders above Payton, Dickerson, Sanders, Smith, or Faulk like many put him now.
Koya
Footballguy
While modern players may get penalized, one thing we can do is compare players from like generations... i.e. moss and harrison (and Moss might be lower because lets face it, he has not always been a stellar teammate, and I am a big fan of his saying that). Faulk and LT2 are just that, but LT2 just seems to get a ton of love for a very, very, very good RB, but not as great as Faulk and not as dominating a presence.
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
I agree that at his peak with the Rams Faulk was more dominant than Tomlinson (I think rushing TDs are the absolute worst measurement of how good a RB is and LT benefits a lot from the Fantasy Football mentality) but I still have reservations about how great Faulk actually was. Faulk just wasn't very good on the Colts. I lived in California when Faulk was in college and I got to see just about all his games. I thought he would be a spectacular NFL player. However, he couldn't run while he was on the Colts. He was well under 4 YPC while he was there. It wasn't until he had borderline HOFs in Holt, Bruce, Warner, and Pace that he became the Faulk we all think of. Edgerrin James filled the void Faulk left and had a better rushing season as a rookie than Faulk ever had (I admit this may have been helped due to the rapid maturation of Manning).
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
I always wonder about these lists because good players on better teams always get the nod over great players on crappy/mediocre teams. Namath (if I remember) had more picks than TD's for his career...top 100...not a chance. I think Irvin was a very good receiver, but that team was made because of a really good defense and an OL that was fantastic to go along with one of the better RB's of all time.I will also note that when you get down to the very best, it is like splitting hairs. Walter Peyton, Sanders, Smith etc...they are all great and to pick a winner may be a little unfair to the other guy. In general, I usually pick the guy who was surrounded my less talent, putting Peyton and Sanders ahead of Smith...For the same reason, a guy like Aikman gets far more accolades than he deserves because he was surrounded by fantastic talent and a great D. Guys like Marino and Elway never had much surrounding talent around them and if either were on that Cowboy team would be considered the best of all time IMO. BTW, I take Marino over Elway.
Koya
Footballguy
The Faulk Indy teams were pretty darn bad, no? He was the best player on one of the best offenses ever who could run better than anyone else in the league minus Sanders, catch the ball out of the backfield better than perhaps anyone ever (or darn close), block as solidly as anyone, know his assignments and be a team leader.
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
Oh yeah, they were bad. I still put Faulk high on my all time RB list.1) Sanders2) Payton3) Brown My next tier (in any order)Smith, Faulk, Dickerson, OJ
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
The up-to-the-minute list is in the original post, as I wrote in the title.
Koya
Footballguy
Other than swapping out Smith with Sayers (Smith was a very, very solid RB, but would be behind those plus a couple others such as E. Campbell) I'd agree.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Moss being where he is ensures that Owens won't be on the list, as there is no way that Owens will be higher than Moss. I am fine with that. I am also fine with Moss' spot. Too much baggage and crap over the years for him to be higher, IMO. Like I have said many times, if he had the heart and work ethic of Jerry Rice, he could have been the best football player ever.
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
I think people discredit Smith too much. Yes, he played with one of the best offenses ever assembled but he was more than just a solid back. Even in this thread Irvin and Aikman are discredited. People forget how great Aikman was in those playoff runs. People also forget how big a part of the passing game Irvin was. If there was ever a go-to guy on a team Irvin was it. In some ways, that 90s Cowboys dynasty has become a victim of its own success. I think Smith is overrated when people say he is the best RB ever - but a lot of people drop him out of their top 10 list which is a travesty. Many people say he isn't even the greatest Cowboy RB (and give those honors to Dorsett). Dorsett never led the league in any significant statistic and is the only RB with any significant number of carries that has fumbled the ball as many times as he scored. Adrian Peterson looks like he has vice grips for hands compared to Dorsett.I think a lot of this discrediting of Smith is because he was Sanders' peer. Depending on where you fall on the side of the debate seems to color how you view the other player. Smith backers say: "Sanders was a quitter, who always lost yardage and killed drives, was replaced at the goal line and short yardage plays, and couldn't hit a hole." None of which is really true. Sanders backers say: "Smith was just a slightly above average back placed in a great situation and had the luxury of running behind one of the greatest oline ever assembled and had a great QB and D to keep him in the game. Any great back could do what Smith did." This really isn't true either. There are shades of truth in the statements - but the conclusions drawn aren't really supported by facts. I like Campbell. I think he is a great runner. However, I don't know if he was a horrible receiver or just wasn't given the opportunity to catch the ball but his receiving stats are pretty sad. IIRC he never scored a receiving TD and only had 1 season with more than 20 receptions. I think he had less than 1000 yards receiving for his career. Sayers is hard to judge - he had a rookie year for the ages and was definitely a HOFer based on talent. I just look at him and I think Napoleon Kaufman which may not be fair but I do place a lot more emphasis on durability than most others do. I think Bo Jackson had great talent - but he was oft injured in college and the pros. Great guy, great back, but wouldn't break my top 20 list of RBs and, like Campbell, wasn't much of a receiver.Koya said:
First of all, who is "LT2"? There is no player with that nickname.Secondly, I threw out Lofton's name as a possibility. He would not make my top 100, but the guy is a Hall of Famer.
I saw that one or two minutes after I posted this morning. Because I had to get ready for work, I didn't bother to edit my post.Raider Nation said:The up-to-the-minute list is in the original post, as I wrote in the title.
FallenHero32
Footballguy
LT2 = Tomlinson. LT = Lawrence Taylor.
Yeah, I know that is how some lazy people refer to Tomlinson. Less typing.edit- removed the rest. Not sure others will get the sarcasm and don't want to rehash the same argument I made in a battle on this topic earlier this year. If somebody is currently writing a response to the original message, then so be it. At that point, maybe we would have the battle again.
Last edited by a moderator:
