Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
Fine post, most of which I snipped for brevity. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim Emmitt is the best RB ever. Even Cowboy homers know better.
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) (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Raider Nation
- Start date
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
But the thing is, this program isn't called "Greatest 100 NFL players who never had baggage"...And now my fear that Lawrence Taylor won't be as high as he should be will probably be a reality.Ghost Rider said:
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
The ESPN boards are full of people who think Smith is the GOAT.
There are only three RB's who should be considered.....Peyton, Sanders and Brown.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
Same people who think Pete Rose is the best baseball player ever.Most yards/Most hits = GOAT
Happy Ragnarok
Footballguy
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
Why is that funny?
Manster
Footballguy
was he the most physically gifted back, NO. did he have the most heart and sack, maybe so. imo, he's at least in the discussion, due to longevity, toughness, pass blocking, breaking tackles, TD's, Yardage, and pure determination......watch some Emmitt highlightsanyone who says he's not in the top 5 (RB) is F'ed in da head.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I disagree, because Taylor, for all of his off-the-field problems, was never accused of not giving his all on the field, IIRC. Moss, meanwhile, has been many times. See, that's the thing with a guy like Moss: some of his baggage was him loafing it, and not just with the Raiders. Baggage off the field is one thing, but baggage on the field is another, and Moss' on-the-field baggage does take away a bit from his overall greatness, IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
Interesting point. In that same vein, I hope every current Hall-of-Famer sits backwards in their seats on stage when Moss gives his induction speech.
BoerumHill
Footballguy
First off, great posting - very cogent and well supported logic in general. BUT...on this point the facts are a tad shaky. The College All-Star game (nobody used the cumbersome official name) started in 1934. We're talking about an era when passing was an afterthought - something you didn't resort to until you were desperate in down/distance or way behind. For crying out loud, the T formation was a good 5 years off (and nobody used it consistently until the first Halas/Luckman championship team in 1940). ANYWAY - suffice to say anything before the end of WWII should be thrown out just because it was more rugby than football as we know it. The real record is NOT the college all-stars won 1/3rd of the time:1934-1938: Single and double wing era, Champs - 1, All-Stars - 2, Ties - 21939-1947: begin of modern formations, Champs - 6, All-Stars -3 (the only time we have a 2:1 ratio)At that point its 7-5-2, and once all the guys are back from the war and societal normalcy takes hold, the league Champions dominate the series.1948-1962: Champs - 12, All-stars - 3, and it was rarely close (about 2/3 of the games were 14 points or more, average margin for pros was 22.25).1963-1976: 1 All-star winOverall I think you make some excellent points about the differences in the modern era and the pre-free agency(in sports in general) pre-big money game took hold. I just wanted to clarify the facts on this one point (seems like you did most/all of your post off memory without looking up stats, and for the most part it is spot on).In the 50s and early 60s, before the AFL rivalry began driving salaries upward, the league average was like five times the average Joe. Once it got above 50 times median income, forget it, nobody was going to be selling insurance in the off-season, and pro sports became a 365 gig.
Last edited by a moderator:
Iwannabeacowboybaby!
Footballguy
Anyone surprised that Troy Aikman was recognized higher than Steve Young? To be honest, I always thought these guys were neck and neck and it's nice to see them finish that way but it was my opinion that others always kind of thought Steve Young was the better QB due to more yards and TD and his other natural abilities.
I'm bias, will openly admit it about Troy Aikman but I feel like they did a great job in ranking him and Steve Young together even though both of those guys really brought different elements to their great teams. I'm also obviously glad Aikman got the nod probably due to more SB wins (3 for 3).
I'm bias, will openly admit it about Troy Aikman but I feel like they did a great job in ranking him and Steve Young together even though both of those guys really brought different elements to their great teams. I'm also obviously glad Aikman got the nod probably due to more SB wins (3 for 3).
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
IMO, Young was the better player and should be ranked higher than Aikman. I think Troy had the stronger arm, but Young's edge in running ability is greater. Everything else - smarts, timing, touch - is pretty close between them.However, I have very little doubt that - given his arm strength, smarts, and touch - that Aikman would've put up HOF stats in a more pass-happy offense. I can't prove that, of course, but my eyeballs told me he had the total package to be a great passing QB.
firstseason1988
Footballguy
I would take Young if given the choice. But Troy himself made a good point, in another system he could have better numbers. He was solid.
timschochet
Footballguy
He'll be extremely high. Probably top 5. Much higher than he deserves, IMO. I think Deacon, Reggie and **** all deserve to be ranked higher than LT. But that's not a popular opinion.
timschochet
Footballguy
Steve Young and Kurt Warner both deserve to be ranked higher than Joe Montana.
Manster
Footballguy
Troy definately didnt reach his ceiling. guys that discount him being up there with the all time greats never really watched him play.what makes him great was his accuracy, leadership, and just being clutch in big games. he's a winner.
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
Thanks for the breakdown. My posts in this thread have been off of memory (primarily because I have had this discussion many times) so I apologize if something isn't exact - but nothing I have said should be outright wrong or even very exaggerated. I use a little broader brush to describe dates and breakdowns and such because most people on messageboards don't care for exact dates of event. I usually state that the college all stars win about 1/3 of the game from inception to their last win. If I change my bounds to be after WW2 to their last win (1946-1963) what I said isn't off base. The breakdown is 12-6 (I did have to go look that up). Which is exactly 1/3 of the games. After 1963, the pros sweep the all stars and the reason that the game was finally cancelled was because it was no longer competitive and the risk of injury wasn't worth it to the pros.Average salary is a little misleading. There wasn't even a minimum salary until the early 1970s and that was only around $10000. I don't think that would be 5 times median salary in the US around this time. If you weren't a superstar you were probably holding down some other job in the offseason.But we are quibbling over the finer points of what I said. I still think that, in general, the mid 1970s is when the league completed the transition to the modern game - my fuzzy cutoff line in 1975
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
Not really, Young was given keys to a Ferrari when Montana left and could only win one race. He had problems with Dallas and Green Bay.
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
How do you figure?
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
Why is Moss at #2 nuts? If you disregard era, I can see Hutson and Rice ahead of him - which places him no worse than 3rd. The most difficult thing for a WR to do is catch TDs and Moss is a TD machine and he has been the primary offensive weapon for record setting 15-1 and 16-0 teams.
Buddy Ball 2K3
Footballguy
Just think where Young,Moss, & LT2 would be ranked if they were Cowboys.
Touchdown Syndrome
Footballguy
Don't forget Jake Delhomme and Mark Rypien!
timschochet
Footballguy
Montana was a great quarterback on great teams, and he was lucky to be on those teams; that's how he has 4 SB wins. Young and Warner were on fine teams but not as good as Montana's; that's why they each have one ring instead of 4. But both Young and Warner had consistently higher QB ratings than Montana. And when I watched all three, I thought that Young and Warner were better. As I wrote, I think Montana was a great QB, but I don't get the adulation that makes him generally considered the best ever. Young with the same offense was better in just about every way. However, Joe Montana is not the most overrated QB in NFL history. That distinction belongs to John Elway.ETA And Roger Staubach is a strong candidate for runner-up.sn0mm1s said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Catbird
Footballguy
Regardles of teams, you still didn't get there unless you were one of the 4 best at your position in football.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
njherdfan
Footballguy
I don't want to sound like an idiot and reveal my youth, but when I was watching the segment on Jim Otto, I noticed he was doing the clothes-hangar blocking style that is used in flag football now. I'm assuming that was all that was allowed when he played, but that raises a question for me: When was the rule changed to allow the blocking that we know now, and how did linemen get anything done when they couldn't extend their arms?
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Here's how Young and Aikman did in all games where they each had at least 30 passes. All stats shown as are per game stats:Uruk-Hai said:
Code:
QB cmp att pyd ptd int rsh rshyd rshtd Young 23.3 36.5 280.0 1.9 1.0 5.0 31.1 0.3Aikmman 22.8 37.1 249.9 1.3 1.1 2.2 7.2 0.1
Code:
QB cmp att pyd ptd icp rsh rshyd rshtd Young 23.8 36.7 286.7 2.0 0.9 5.0 31.4 0.4Aikmman 23.1 37.3 254.0 1.3 1.0 2.0 5.1 0.1sn0mm1s
Footballguy
Montana's first two Superbowls were won without any superstars. It could be argued that Young and Warner weren't even the best offensive players on their SB teams - you can't say that for Montana's first two wins. The reason Montana gets such high praise is:1) He was a great regular season QB.2) He was *the greatest* postseason QB.Montana was also only win away from getting the Chiefs to the Superbowl (this was with a surgically repaired elbow in his late 30s). I don't think he was really someone carried by his team or lucky to be at the right place at the right time.I will say that I think Warner is underrated by many fans. His regular season and postseason stats are great. Only Warner, Montana, and I believe Bart Starr have multiple SB appearances and a better than 2:1 TD:INT ratio in the playoffs. He was more a victim of circumstance with his last Rams season, NYG stint, and first part of his Cardinals stint.
njherdfan
Footballguy
You could make the argument that T.O and Carter have been better than Moss thus far (I'd disagree) but there's no reason to expect that Moss WON'T surpass Carter in receptions (he needs about 170) or T.O in Receiving yards (he's 500 yds behind, and 3 years younger). By the end of his career Moss will almost certainly be 2nd in the 3 major receiving categories, which I would think would lock him in as better than both T.O or Carter.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
When it comes to the big three WR stats - receptions, receiving yards and touchdowns - touchdowns is definitely the hardest thing for a WR to consistently put up. Receptions is totally overrated, especially nowadays where receivers catch short passes all of the time. Moss consistently puts up double digits touchdown catches (in 9 of his 12 seasons so far), which is extremely impressive.
dgreen
Footballguy
I could be wrong, but I think that was part of the 1978 rule changes along with limiting the contact a DB could make after 5 yards.
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
As mentioned he is much younger than TO and Carter and already ahead of them. The reason why TDs are the most difficult thing for a WR to do is:1) You have to beat your coverage significantly or have great open field running ability to score a long TD. Not many WRs have the speed or open field running ability to beat DBs.2) You have to be able to catch in traffic or be superior physically since the field is shorter to catch a short TD. It is much more difficult to gain any sort of separation when the QB is passing from the 5 yard line.Receptions and yardage are fairly easy to come by.
mulliganman
Footballguy
If not for the injuries at the end of his run in St. Louis and continuing over to N.Y. it would be very interesting to see what his final career numbers would have been. When he has been healthy, he has been as good as any qb who has played.
Iwannabeacowboybaby!
Footballguy
That kind of proves my theory then that it has to be the 3 SB's for Aikman and 1 for Young. Those numbers in their prime are relatively close, the gap isn't worthy of 2 super bowls, at least not IMO. Young was great though, he'd kill you if you let him.
TheBoyzguru
Footballguy
Aikman's accuracy in the history of this game is second to none. Thing is, I think he was a system QB much like Young and Youngs running ability makes it pretty much a draw for me. Aikman is one of the most underrated players in NFL history IMO. Watch his throws, they are all EXACTLY where they need to be. Uncanny. Watching the early highlights of Sam Bradford I see similar skills. Rams fans should be fired up.Uruk-Hai said:
TheBoyzguru
Footballguy
I dont care what era you are playing in, a QB only SB team 3 times is impressive. Elway to me is the greatest of all time because he is one of the few non-system QBs ever. Most guys like Montana,Aikman,Warner, and Moon to name a few were beneficiary of the systems they were in. Granted, this is what football is about and its not meant to take away from their accomplishments. Elway single handedly carried 3 Bronco teams that had no lead WR, no lead RB, no HOF Olinemen or even All Pro if I recall to SB appearances. Once he got a running game, he won SBs. Had he had Shanny earlier in his career, I honestly see him as a 5 SB winner.
Stompin' Tom Connors
Footballguy
Fantastic show so far -- and fantastic thread. Thanks RN for starting this up, great idea.
Forgive if this is been charted in the thread so far, but I'm way too lazy to go through 5 pages.
Seems like at this point, here is where we are in terms of leaderboard:
TEAM WITH MOST PLAYERS IN TOP 100:
* DAL, OAK (5)
* NYG (4)
* 8 tied at 2
MOST POSITIONS REPRESENTED IN TOP 100:
QB (6)
RB, LB (5)
WR (4)
Of course, there had to be some calls, given the nature of players moving around to different teams (Randy Moss, Paul Warfield, etc.), and teams moving to different cities (Bruce Matthews, Ernie Nevers).
I tried to put a player on the team where he arguably had the most impact. That's still subjective, I know. But make your own damned list if you're not happy with it.
Full stats:
Team Count
DAL 5
OAK 5
NYG 4
STL 2
MIN 2
GB 2
SD 2
HOU 2
TB 2
BAL 2
LA 2
WAS 1
KC 1
CLE 1
CHI 1
SF 1
NYJ 1
DET 1
IND 1
PIT 1
MIA 1
Pos Count
QB 6
RB 5
LB 5
WR 4
DE 3
CB 3
C 3
OL 3
TE 2
FB 2
S 1
DT 1
DB 1
OT 1
Forgive if this is been charted in the thread so far, but I'm way too lazy to go through 5 pages.
Seems like at this point, here is where we are in terms of leaderboard:
TEAM WITH MOST PLAYERS IN TOP 100:
* DAL, OAK (5)
* NYG (4)
* 8 tied at 2
MOST POSITIONS REPRESENTED IN TOP 100:
QB (6)
RB, LB (5)
WR (4)
Of course, there had to be some calls, given the nature of players moving around to different teams (Randy Moss, Paul Warfield, etc.), and teams moving to different cities (Bruce Matthews, Ernie Nevers).
I tried to put a player on the team where he arguably had the most impact. That's still subjective, I know. But make your own damned list if you're not happy with it.
Full stats:
Team Count
DAL 5
OAK 5
NYG 4
STL 2
MIN 2
GB 2
SD 2
HOU 2
TB 2
BAL 2
LA 2
WAS 1
KC 1
CLE 1
CHI 1
SF 1
NYJ 1
DET 1
IND 1
PIT 1
MIA 1
Pos Count
QB 6
RB 5
LB 5
WR 4
DE 3
CB 3
C 3
OL 3
TE 2
FB 2
S 1
DT 1
DB 1
OT 1
Tau837
Footballguy
I assume you are referring to the run and shoot offense in Houston for Moon. But Moon left Houston for Minnesota and in his first two seasons there, at ages 38 and 39, he threw for 8492 yards and 51 TDs. Were the Vikings using the same system? And then he went to Seattle and in his first season there, at age 41, he threw for 3678 yards and 25 TDs in 14 starts. Were the Seahawks using the same system?Moon was not a system QB. He was talented enough to excel in any system.And I think that is generally the case with most HOF QBs and, for that matter, HOF players at all positions. In general, they are/were talented enough to excel in many systems. The cream generally rises to the top.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
This is one of the worst posts I've seen in Shark Pool HOF discussions. Pretty much every point made (Montana, Montana vs. Young and Warner, Elway, Staubach) in this post is completely wrong.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
He HAS to be.
Tau837
Footballguy
Then again, it is Tim...He'sHe HAS to be.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Warner's per game stats are great, no doubt. And it's misleading to just look at his career gross totals. OTOH, it's also misleading to just look at her great per game numbers and ignore that he had the benefit of playing in domes for most of his career, playing against weak SOSs most of his career, and playing with superstar supporting casts most of his career. Put Warner in the AFC North, and his per game numbers would be a bit lower.
Last edited by a moderator:
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
So you're saying that it's like the Seinfeld ep where George does the opposite and it works?Tim, will you post your ATS picks for today?
