"100 Greatest Players" on NFLN - (List is in original post) (2 Viewers)

[johnnyboy8102]

Nagurski is the only player out of my final 20 picks that I wouldn't consider a lock but I can't think of anyone else.

He finished #35 on the Sporting News list in 1999 and it wouldn't seem to make sense to have him higher than that with active players (Manning, Brady, Favre, Lewis) ahead of him. He most likely should have been around #40-#45.

EDIT: Bronko Nagurski is one of the most intimidating and most versatile performers in football history, and he could play any position on the field if we asked him to do so. He plays outside linebacker on defense and we've have paired him with Jim Brown on offense, which gives the All-Time 11 the most punishing offensive backfield ever assembled. It’s hard to imagine a more fearsome ball carrier – an athletic, 225-pound back from an era that produced 200-pound Hall of Fame linemen. His is an oversized, Paul Bunyanesque legend from the North Woods that has continued to grow with time.

“Nagurski is the greatest NFL player before 1950, hands down and without question,” said Cold, Hard Football Facts contributor Allen Barra.

Famed sportswriter Grantland Rice would agree. Fielding a team of Nagurskis, Rice wrote back in the 1930s, would be “something close to murder and massacre.” Sounds like our kind of team.

Statistics from the primitive early era of pro football were not kept well – and even if they were, yards and points were hard to come by. So Nagurski's numbers do not stack up to those of the players who came afterward. But we do know this: His versatility is unmatched in gridiron annals.

In college, Nagurski earned the rare honor of being named All-America as a fullback and as a defensive tackle. In the NFL, he’s the only player in history who was named All-Pro at three different positions (DL, OL and RB). In his spare time, he became a three-time heavyweight champion of professional wrestling. Nagurski returned to the NFL in 1943 after a five-year retirement and, as a fullback and two-way tackle, helped guide the Bears to his third NFL championship.

Nagurski’s signature season came in 1933, when he rushed for 533 yards on 128 carries, led a defense that surrendered just 6.3 PPG and helped power the Bears to a league-best 10-2-1 record and a West division crown. He capped the season with pair of TD passes as the Bears beat the Giants, 23-21, in the first ever NFL title game.

 

[Angus82]

Nagurski is the only player out of my final 20 picks that I wouldn't consider a lock but I can't think of anyone else.

He finished #35 on the Sporting News list in 1999 and it wouldn't seem to make sense to have him higher than that with active players (Manning, Brady, Favre, Lewis) ahead of him. He most likely should have been around #40-#45.

EDIT: Bronko Nagurski is one of the most intimidating and most versatile performers in football history, and he could play any position on the field if we asked him to do so. He plays outside linebacker on defense and we've have paired him with Jim Brown on offense, which gives the All-Time 11 the most punishing offensive backfield ever assembled. It’s hard to imagine a more fearsome ball carrier – an athletic, 225-pound back from an era that produced 200-pound Hall of Fame linemen. His is an oversized, Paul Bunyanesque legend from the North Woods that has continued to grow with time.

“Nagurski is the greatest NFL player before 1950, hands down and without question,” said Cold, Hard Football Facts contributor Allen Barra.

Famed sportswriter Grantland Rice would agree. Fielding a team of Nagurskis, Rice wrote back in the 1930s, would be “something close to murder and massacre.” Sounds like our kind of team.

Statistics from the primitive early era of pro football were not kept well – and even if they were, yards and points were hard to come by. So Nagurski's numbers do not stack up to those of the players who came afterward. But we do know this: His versatility is unmatched in gridiron annals.

In college, Nagurski earned the rare honor of being named All-America as a fullback and as a defensive tackle. In the NFL, he’s the only player in history who was named All-Pro at three different positions (DL, OL and RB). In his spare time, he became a three-time heavyweight champion of professional wrestling. Nagurski returned to the NFL in 1943 after a five-year retirement and, as a fullback and two-way tackle, helped guide the Bears to his third NFL championship.

Nagurski’s signature season came in 1933, when he rushed for 533 yards on 128 carries, led a defense that surrendered just 6.3 PPG and helped power the Bears to a league-best 10-2-1 record and a West division crown. He capped the season with pair of TD passes as the Bears beat the Giants, 23-21, in the first ever NFL title game.

Thanks for a great posting. I always love to hear about the pioneers of the game.

 

[Mario Kart]

Brett Favre #1

 

[Sebowski]

When this got started I beta friend Sammy Baugh would be top 15. What are my chances?

 

[ookook]

I feel obligated to mention that I believe Bart Starr should be ranked above about half the folk underneath him. Seriously.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Nagurski is the only player out of my final 20 picks that I wouldn't consider a lock but I can't think of anyone else. He finished #35 on the Sporting News list in 1999 and it wouldn't seem to make sense to have him higher than that with active players (Manning, Brady, Favre, Lewis) ahead of him. He most likely should have been around #40-#45.

That is more along the lines of where I would have expected him to be - maybe even further back. I don't feel like rehashing the era discussion from earlier in this thread but needless to say older players seem to be favored quite a bit more than modern players. This list's top 10 greatest RBs might end up looking like:1) Brown2) Payton3) Nagurski4) Sanders5) Sayers6) Smith7) Thorpe8) Simpson9) Grange10) DickersonI didn't realize that they polled every dead sportswriter in the country to make this list.

 

[zed2283]

1) Brown2) Payton3) Nagurski4) Sanders5) Sayers6) Smith7) Thorpe8) Simpson9) Grange10) Dickerson

What's wrong with that list?Also, yes Elway above Marino. No question.

 

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

Elaway and Marino should be over Brady (along with some other QBs)

Rod Woodson was good on NFL Access, he emphaticaally said I played against all 3, Brady is not better then Elway or Marino

Once again Brady being overrated, sportswriters love him

 

[thekidd2009]

I'm having a hard time dealing with Elway checking in above Marino. There was nobody like Marino.

The ironic part about Elway above Marino is they dubbed him the "comeback king." I read an article on profootball reference that proved that the broncos pr department invented the come from behind stat for Elway and that Marino actually has more comebacks then Elway.

 

[Manster]

Aikman ahead of Steve Young

It's bad, but I don't think it's "eye-rolling" bad and I'll tell you why.Does anyone think Aikman couldn't have put up silly video game numbers had he been in Bill Walsh's offense or the Run 'n Shoot offense which Warren Moon ran in Houston? Aikman was incredibly talented, but many people forget that because he didn't NEED to throw the ball 30 times a game. When you play with Emmitt and that O-line, you throw when you need to throw. Aikman was a winner. He shouldn't be punished for having superior talent around him.

It shouldn't matter. Players should be judged only on what they did, not on what they might have done in different situations. That is nothing but speculation. No one can know with 100% certainty that Aikman would have performed as well as or better than Young in that 49ers offense.For that reason, I think it is an eye rolling offense. Aikman shouldn't even be in the top 100 IMO. It appears at this point that there are going to be 20 or so QBs in the top 100, which IMO is ridiculous.

Aikman- Games Started: 165 Completion % 61.5 Yards: 32,942 TD: 165 INT: 141 QB Rating: 81.6

Steve Young - Games Started: 143 Completion % 64.3 Yards: 33,124 TD: 232 INT: 107 QB Rating: 96.8

Young beats Aikman in every single major QB relevant statistic. Add in Young's 4,239 yards rushing and 43 TD's and its quite laughable that Young is ranked where he is.

Pro Football Reference really shows the difference statistically between Aikman and Young. The 3 QBs who compare closest to Steve Young are Dan Fouts, Ken Anderson, and Joe Montana. Aikman compares closest to Mark Brunell, Donovan McNabb, and Ken Stabler. They just aren't in the same league. Also an interesting stat related to fantasy: Aikman's 2 best years, he finished 4th and 9th amongst QBs. Steve Young was the top QB in fantasy 4 times.

you are comparing Aikman to Brunell, McNabb and Stabler? wow, now that is laughable. some of you stat crunchers need to simmer down. watch the games and put the stat sheets down.

 

[Manster]

Just to stir the pot, Namath and Irvin are over rated. There are 260 members of the NFL Hall of Fame and to think that these two are part of the 100 greatest players seems like a reach.Namath was the first to throw for 4k in a season and there was something about a guarantee, but injuries destroyed his chance at real historical greatness.Irvin led the league in receiving yards in 1991 but never led in any other statistical category. A HOF'er on a great team, but one of the 100 greatest? I don't think so.Also for you youngsters, look up the names Jim Parker, Sammy Baugh, Jim Thorpe, and Marion Motley. That should give you a good head start going into the rest of the countdown.

OK I can't let this go.Michael Irvin was much more then numbers. He was a leader. This guys intensity is unmatched. He made players around him better. Every team knew where the ball was going and he still got it done. Every team knew the slant was coming and it was still completed time and time again. He was as physical a wr you will ever find. His teammates looked to him when times were tough. There was never a moment that was to big for this guy. Matter of fact he lived for the big moments. If Irvin was not the player he was the Cowboys would have won zero titles in that time period. Who was the best compliment wr Irvin ever had next to him? This guy made sure that all players practiced hard and if not got in their face. He was much more then the flash everyone saw after a td catch or first down catch. This guy was a warrior on the field and to say he does not deserve to be in the top 100 players because he never led in statical categories is just plain blind. This guy was the passion and heart of a 3 time Super Bowl winning team. He was a winner and demanded nothing less from himself and his teammates. That puts him in the top 100 cause everyone knows this guy had the talent. It takes more then talent to get into the top 100. HE BELONGS

Blah blah blah... Irvin belongs in neither the HoF nor Top 100.

This response shows how weak your argument is.

Not really. Just saying that the quote above was a bunch of gibberish. The Cowboys absolutely win titles without him.Maybe I'm hating on him a little. He was a great player but, again, he doesn't belong in either group. Drew Pearson was a better 88 for the Cowboys.

gibberish? talk to any Cowboy who played with Irvin. dude worked harder than anyone on that team. thats contagious. that wins SB's.

 

[Manster]

Steve Young and Kurt Warner both deserve to be ranked higher than Joe Montana.

How do you figure?

Because a lot of people put way to much emphasis on numbers and not how these guys played the game and how they were viewed when they played. Montana was better he was feared and when the game was on the line forget about it. He was money. Warner and Young great players but Montana never failed when it mattered.

Numbers are not everything and a lot of numbers are better for players with less talent because of the system they were in. It is the intangibles that separate most of these great players and Montana has all the intangibles you would ever want in a football player. It is silly to say Warner or Young were better.

This also settles the Barry Emmit debate. Sorry but can you see Barry Freaken Sanders playing with a separated and showing that much heart...........didn't think so. Emmitt had all the intangibles also Barry just did not. Barry had more natural talent them Emmitt but Emmitt was the better complete football player he just had it. He was an all time great that had that extra something that puts him in the top 10 with Montana. They will be there they both have to be.

I dunno, it probably takes just as much heart to play for an organization that doesn't care about winning. Barry was superior to Smith. However, I do agree (as I think I mentioned earlier in this thread) that Irvin deserves to be in the top 100 and in the HOF. There will be two RBs ranked higher than Sanders - Payton and Brown. I don't agree with that but nostalgia and myth override objective analysis when it comes to rankings in these all-time polls.

Barry Sanders while great and all time great was not the total football player as Emmit was. Barry had the highlights and the ability to make people miss more then any player I have ever seen. Emmit had some of that but what he had more then Sanders was a lot more then just juke moves and highlights. Emmit could do it all catch, run, block, goal line short yardage, get to the outside, toughness, players were never able to get a clean shot on him and he could take it all the way to the house. The big one they guy was a leader and super football IQ. If we are making a list of players with the most raw football talent Emmit would not be in the top 50 and Barry would be in the top 10 but if we are talking about the top 100 football players of all time and what they did on the field and what they meant to the game. Emmit is the choice.One more thing if we are ranking the top running backs of all time maybe I would put Barry over Emmti cause Barry could run the football like no other but outside his exciting running style there was not much else there but if it is top 100 Football PLAYERS of all time. Emmit was a better overall football player pretty much all the way around.

this makes sense to me. we can argue about the best RB's of all time forever. BUT Emmitt is right there with the rest of em. if you watched him play and you dont agree, you're lyin to yourself, or you dont know how to watch football.sometimes i feel the need to defend my 'Boys. cause i know some of you like to come outta the woodwork to take shots at em in threads like these. carry on.

 

[zed2283]

That's ok. You guys are just homering on your Cowboys. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Angus82]

Does anyone think Aikman couldn't have put up silly video game numbers had he been in Bill Walsh's offense or the Run 'n Shoot offense which Warren Moon ran in Houston? Aikman was incredibly talented, but many people forget that because he didn't NEED to throw the ball 30 times a game. When you play with Emmitt and that O-line, you throw when you need to throw. Aikman was a winner. He shouldn't be punished for having superior talent around him.

It shouldn't matter. Players should be judged only on what they did, not on what they might have done in different situations. That is nothing but speculation. No one can know with 100% certainty that Aikman would have performed as well as or better than Young in that 49ers offense.

For that reason, I think it is an eye rolling offense. Aikman shouldn't even be in the top 100 IMO. It appears at this point that there are going to be 20 or so QBs in the top 100, which IMO is ridiculous.

Aikman- Games Started: 165 Completion % 61.5 Yards: 32,942 TD: 165 INT: 141 QB Rating: 81.6

Steve Young - Games Started: 143 Completion % 64.3 Yards: 33,124 TD: 232 INT: 107 QB Rating: 96.8

Young beats Aikman in every single major QB relevant statistic. Add in Young's 4,239 yards rushing and 43 TD's and its quite laughable that Young is ranked where he is.

Pro Football Reference really shows the difference statistically between Aikman and Young. The 3 QBs who compare closest to Steve Young are Dan Fouts, Ken Anderson, and Joe Montana. Aikman compares closest to Mark Brunell, Donovan McNabb, and Ken Stabler. They just aren't in the same league.

Also an interesting stat related to fantasy: Aikman's 2 best years, he finished 4th and 9th amongst QBs. Steve Young was the top QB in fantasy 4 times.

you are comparing Aikman to Brunell, McNabb and Stabler? wow, now that is laughable. some of you stat crunchers need to simmer down. watch the games and put the stat sheets down.

This is a bit of a reach. I may question whether or not Aikman belongs in the NFL's top 100 but to compare him to Brunell and McNabb is a flat out insult. Stats be damned. Even Fouts, Anderson(who I think is greatly underrated), and Stabler have to stand in Troy's shadow. Troy was tough, had the talent, the leadership ability, and knew what it took to win. Someone had to Captain "South America's Team" in the '90's. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)

 

[Ghost Rider]

I'm having a hard time dealing with Elway checking in above Marino. There was nobody like Marino.

The ironic part about Elway above Marino is they dubbed him the "comeback king." I read an article on profootball reference that proved that the broncos pr department invented the come from behind stat for Elway and that Marino actually has more comebacks then Elway.

I suspect it all boils down to what kind of comeback we are talking about:Comebacks in the 4th quarter altogether? Comebacks in the last five minutes?The last two minutes? I am sure a fan of either team could tweak the standard a bit to make their guy finish higher. Regardless, Elway and Marino were both pretty awesome at engineering come-from-behind wins late in games, so quibbling over which guy was actually better seems pointless.

 

[Angus82]

I'm having a hard time dealing with Elway checking in above Marino. There was nobody like Marino.

The ironic part about Elway above Marino is they dubbed him the "comeback king." I read an article on profootball reference that proved that the broncos pr department invented the come from behind stat for Elway and that Marino actually has more comebacks then Elway.

I suspect it all boils down to what kind of comeback we are talking about:Comebacks in the 4th quarter altogether? Comebacks in the last five minutes?The last two minutes? I am sure a fan of either team could tweak the standard a bit to make their guy finish higher. Regardless, Elway and Marino were both pretty awesome at engineering come-from-behind wins late in games, so quibbling over which guy was actually better seems pointless.

This is a completely subjective argument. Marino was the greatest pure passer of this generation and Elway was one of the best all-around QB's in history(Not counting Sammy Baugh). As far as the whole comeback thing, that seems to be an over-rated stat that people do not know how to rate.

 

[sn0mm1s]

this makes sense to me. we can argue about the best RB's of all time forever. BUT Emmitt is right there with the rest of em. if you watched him play and you dont agree, you're lyin to yourself, or you dont know how to watch football.sometimes i feel the need to defend my 'Boys. cause i know some of you like to come outta the woodwork to take shots at em in threads like these. carry on.

I agree, there does seem to be a lot of irrational Cowboys hatred - especially towards Irvin and Aikman. They do not get the respect they deserve and it seems neither does Brady. I have Smith as #4 RB behind Sanders, Payton, and Brown. I think it is pretty ridiculous that Bronko Nagurski and Gale Sayers are ranked above him. I think it is equally as ridiculous that 3 RBs that played before 1940 are in the top 10 RBs of all time.

 

[sn0mm1s]

This is a completely subjective argument. Marino was the greatest pure passer of this generation and Elway was one of the best all-around QB's in history(Not counting Sammy Baugh). As far as the whole comeback thing, that seems to be an over-rated stat that people do not know how to rate.

I can't really argue about Marino's passing ability... but I would think Tarkenton and Young would be better all-around QB's if you are counting running and passing.

 

[zed2283]

this makes sense to me. we can argue about the best RB's of all time forever. BUT Emmitt is right there with the rest of em. if you watched him play and you dont agree, you're lyin to yourself, or you dont know how to watch football.sometimes i feel the need to defend my 'Boys. cause i know some of you like to come outta the woodwork to take shots at em in threads like these. carry on.

I agree, there does seem to be a lot of irrational Cowboys hatred - especially towards Irvin and Aikman. They do not get the respect they deserve and it seems neither does Brady. I have Smith as #4 RB behind Sanders, Payton, and Brown. I think it is pretty ridiculous that Bronko Nagurski and Gale Sayers are ranked above him. I think it is equally as ridiculous that 3 RBs that played before 1940 are in the top 10 RBs of all time.

Are you kidding? Red Grange? The guy who put professional football on the map? Jim Thorpe? Maybe the greatest athlete of all-time?

 

[tdoss]

Marino never had a running back at all...not one. You stepped on the field against Marino and you knew you only had to stop him...but still couldn't. Hell, even the vaunted '85 Bears defense couldn't keep him from winning.

And Marino's defense...grief. The guy would have countless rings on Brady's, Elway's, Favre's or Montana's teams. If he played today where the defense isn't allowed to even touch the QB or WR and WR can push off...good lord.

And how does the Patriots' cheating not reflect poorly on Brady at all? He doesn't get discounted in the slightest for knowing the opponents plays/signals on offense and defense...nevermind that ridiculous "tuck" crap.

 

[Angus82]

This is a completely subjective argument. Marino was the greatest pure passer of this generation and Elway was one of the best all-around QB's in history(Not counting Sammy Baugh). As far as the whole comeback thing, that seems to be an over-rated stat that people do not know how to rate.

I can't really argue about Marino's passing ability... but I would think Tarkenton and Young would be better all-around QB's if you are counting running and passing.

Good point. Young, Elway, and Tarkenton, are all pretty equal in their abilities. I would have to rank Young first and then Elway.

 

[sn0mm1s]

this makes sense to me. we can argue about the best RB's of all time forever. BUT Emmitt is right there with the rest of em. if you watched him play and you dont agree, you're lyin to yourself, or you dont know how to watch football.sometimes i feel the need to defend my 'Boys. cause i know some of you like to come outta the woodwork to take shots at em in threads like these. carry on.

I agree, there does seem to be a lot of irrational Cowboys hatred - especially towards Irvin and Aikman. They do not get the respect they deserve and it seems neither does Brady. I have Smith as #4 RB behind Sanders, Payton, and Brown. I think it is pretty ridiculous that Bronko Nagurski and Gale Sayers are ranked above him. I think it is equally as ridiculous that 3 RBs that played before 1940 are in the top 10 RBs of all time.

Are you kidding? Red Grange? The guy who put professional football on the map? Jim Thorpe? Maybe the greatest athlete of all-time?

I don't think James Naismith is the best basketball player ever - I wouldn't even put him in a top 100 list - even though he invented the game. I wouldn't put Jackie Robinson in my top 10 baseball players list - even though he was the first to break the color barrier. Just as I wouldn't put Grange in the top 10 list because he was the first college star to play "pro" ball. I use that term loosely because it really wasn't that organized or very professional. The only guy of that era that deserves to be mentioned is Thorpe for the reasons you mentioned. However, I still don't think I would take him over say someone like Marshall Faulk. I guess if "greatest" doesn't mean "best" then I am OK with this list - but I am pretty sure that Faulk, Dickerson, Simpson, Campbell, Smith, Dorsett, Tomlinson, Sayers, etc. etc. would run circles around Grange and Nagurski.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Marino never had a running back at all...not one. You stepped on the field against Marino and you knew you only had to stop him...but still couldn't. Hell, even the vaunted '85 Bears defense couldn't keep him from winning.And Marino's defense...grief. The guy would have countless rings on Brady's, Elway's, Favre's or Montana's teams. If he played today where the defense isn't allowed to even touch the QB or WR and WR can push off...good lord.And how does the Patriots' cheating not reflect poorly on Brady at all? He doesn't get discounted in the slightest for knowing the opponents plays/signals on offense and defense...nevermind that ridiculous "tuck" crap.

Good QBs don't need RBs - they just need a decent D.

 

[Angus82]

Marino never had a running back at all...not one. You stepped on the field against Marino and you knew you only had to stop him...but still couldn't. Hell, even the vaunted '85 Bears defense couldn't keep him from winning.And Marino's defense...grief. The guy would have countless rings on Brady's, Elway's, Favre's or Montana's teams. If he played today where the defense isn't allowed to even touch the QB or WR and WR can push off...good lord.And how does the Patriots' cheating not reflect poorly on Brady at all? He doesn't get discounted in the slightest for knowing the opponents plays/signals on offense and defense...nevermind that ridiculous "tuck" crap.

Good QBs don't need RBs - they just need a decent D.

Good Luck with that. Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Fran Tarkenton, etc. If you cannot run out the clock you cannot protect your D and you cannot win. Ask John Elway about his Super Bowl wins before Terrell Davis.

 

[tdoss]

Marino never had a running back at all...not one. You stepped on the field against Marino and you knew you only had to stop him...but still couldn't. Hell, even the vaunted '85 Bears defense couldn't keep him from winning.And Marino's defense...grief. The guy would have countless rings on Brady's, Elway's, Favre's or Montana's teams. If he played today where the defense isn't allowed to even touch the QB or WR and WR can push off...good lord.And how does the Patriots' cheating not reflect poorly on Brady at all? He doesn't get discounted in the slightest for knowing the opponents plays/signals on offense and defense...nevermind that ridiculous "tuck" crap.

Good QBs don't need RBs - they just need a decent D.

Good Luck with that. Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Fran Tarkenton, etc. If you cannot run out the clock you cannot protect your D and you cannot win. Ask John Elway about his Super Bowl wins before Terrell Davis.

I don't get sn0mm1s point...it's been noted many times, even in the post of mine that he quoted that Marino had a defense that wasn't worth mentioning...which further illustrates my point. The guy had mediocre defense and no run game and he never scrambled for yardage...all you had to do was cover your guy...and you still couldn't stop him. Think about it...you don't have to worry about the run game...you don't have to worry about him coming out the pocket to pick up first downs...sounds pretty simple from a defensive standpoint. Nope. These other guys had mobility, excellent runningbacks, alltime receivers, top defenses...and they still don't compare to Marino.

 

[PhilLynott]

Marino never had a running back at all...not one. You stepped on the field against Marino and you knew you only had to stop him...but still couldn't. Hell, even the vaunted '85 Bears defense couldn't keep him from winning.And Marino's defense...grief. The guy would have countless rings on Brady's, Elway's, Favre's or Montana's teams. If he played today where the defense isn't allowed to even touch the QB or WR and WR can push off...good lord.And how does the Patriots' cheating not reflect poorly on Brady at all? He doesn't get discounted in the slightest for knowing the opponents plays/signals on offense and defense...nevermind that ridiculous "tuck" crap.

Good QBs don't need RBs - they just need a decent D.

Good Luck with that. Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Fran Tarkenton, etc. If you cannot run out the clock you cannot protect your D and you cannot win. Ask John Elway about his Super Bowl wins before Terrell Davis.

I don't get sn0mm1s point...it's been noted many times, even in the post of mine that he quoted that Marino had a defense that wasn't worth mentioning...which further illustrates my point. The guy had mediocre defense and no run game and he never scrambled for yardage...all you had to do was cover your guy...and you still couldn't stop him. Think about it...you don't have to worry about the run game...you don't have to worry about him coming out the pocket to pick up first downs...sounds pretty simple from a defensive standpoint. Nope. These other guys had mobility, excellent runningbacks, alltime receivers, top defenses...and they still don't compare to Marino.

Marino was missing a running game. No argument. At one point he had the Killer B's and of course he always had Shula. He never had a running game. Marino, to me,(for what that is worth) is the greatest passer that I will ever see.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I'm having a hard time dealing with Elway checking in above Marino. There was nobody like Marino.

The ironic part about Elway above Marino is they dubbed him the "comeback king." I read an article on profootball reference that proved that the broncos pr department invented the come from behind stat for Elway and that Marino actually has more comebacks then Elway.

I suspect it all boils down to what kind of comeback we are talking about:Comebacks in the 4th quarter altogether? Comebacks in the last five minutes?The last two minutes? I am sure a fan of either team could tweak the standard a bit to make their guy finish higher. Regardless, Elway and Marino were both pretty awesome at engineering come-from-behind wins late in games, so quibbling over which guy was actually better seems pointless.

This is a completely subjective argument.

Which is why I said it was pointless to quibble over it.

Marino never had a running back at all...not one. You stepped on the field against Marino and you knew you only had to stop him...but still couldn't. Hell, even the vaunted '85 Bears defense couldn't keep him from winning.

And yet Marino could never win a Super Bowl, and only got to one, despite spending 13 years with Don Shula (2 Super Bowls w/o Marino) and 4 years with Jimmy Johnson (2 Super Bowls w/o Marino). So, while Elway had the edge in the running game department, thanks to Terrell Davis his last four years, Marino had the edge in coaches (Marino was never coached by Wade Phillips). I am just saying. Besides, hasn't history shown that having a great RB, or even a great running game, is not needed to win a Super Bowl? Having a great head coach and a very good to great QB is significantly more important than having a stud RB.

 

[del mar]

1) Jim Brown

2) Lawrence Taylor

3-100) 98 other very good guys

 

[Native]

I'm having a hard time dealing with Elway checking in above Marino. There was nobody like Marino.

I completely agree. I have a problem with Elway checking in above just about everyone in this episode. Marino is pretty unlucky in the sense that he never really had a good D during his prime years. Until recently, the vast majority of SB winning teams had a top 10 scoring D.I feel the same way about Sayers over Smith and and even OJ and I can't believe that Nagurski is going to be above everyone but maybe Sanders, Payton, and Brown.

Completely agree here. Elway and Brady shouldnt be above Marino

 

[spider321]

1) Jim Brown2) Lawrence Taylor3-100) 98 other very good guys

Fixed that for ya...1-99) Jerry Rice100) 99 other very good guys

 

[spider321]

I'm having a hard time dealing with Elway checking in above Marino. There was nobody like Marino.

I completely agree. I have a problem with Elway checking in above just about everyone in this episode. Marino is pretty unlucky in the sense that he never really had a good D during his prime years. Until recently, the vast majority of SB winning teams had a top 10 scoring D.I feel the same way about Sayers over Smith and and even OJ and I can't believe that Nagurski is going to be above everyone but maybe Sanders, Payton, and Brown.

Completely agree here. Elway and Brady shouldnt be above Marino

True. Marino was better than both.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Marino never had a running back at all...not one. You stepped on the field against Marino and you knew you only had to stop him...but still couldn't. Hell, even the vaunted '85 Bears defense couldn't keep him from winning.And Marino's defense...grief. The guy would have countless rings on Brady's, Elway's, Favre's or Montana's teams. If he played today where the defense isn't allowed to even touch the QB or WR and WR can push off...good lord.And how does the Patriots' cheating not reflect poorly on Brady at all? He doesn't get discounted in the slightest for knowing the opponents plays/signals on offense and defense...nevermind that ridiculous "tuck" crap.

Good QBs don't need RBs - they just need a decent D.

Good Luck with that. Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Fran Tarkenton, etc. If you cannot run out the clock you cannot protect your D and you cannot win. Ask John Elway about his Super Bowl wins before Terrell Davis.

I don't get sn0mm1s point...it's been noted many times, even in the post of mine that he quoted that Marino had a defense that wasn't worth mentioning...which further illustrates my point. The guy had mediocre defense and no run game and he never scrambled for yardage...all you had to do was cover your guy...and you still couldn't stop him. Think about it...you don't have to worry about the run game...you don't have to worry about him coming out the pocket to pick up first downs...sounds pretty simple from a defensive standpoint. Nope. These other guys had mobility, excellent runningbacks, alltime receivers, top defenses...and they still don't compare to Marino.

The point is that lacking a good RB shouldn't be an excuse for a great QB for why he didn't win championships.Elway didn't lose his 1st three SBs because he didn't have a running game. He lost them because he was unable to put up points and his defense was a sieve.

 

[zed2283]

this makes sense to me. we can argue about the best RB's of all time forever. BUT Emmitt is right there with the rest of em. if you watched him play and you dont agree, you're lyin to yourself, or you dont know how to watch football.sometimes i feel the need to defend my 'Boys. cause i know some of you like to come outta the woodwork to take shots at em in threads like these. carry on.

I agree, there does seem to be a lot of irrational Cowboys hatred - especially towards Irvin and Aikman. They do not get the respect they deserve and it seems neither does Brady. I have Smith as #4 RB behind Sanders, Payton, and Brown. I think it is pretty ridiculous that Bronko Nagurski and Gale Sayers are ranked above him. I think it is equally as ridiculous that 3 RBs that played before 1940 are in the top 10 RBs of all time.

Are you kidding? Red Grange? The guy who put professional football on the map? Jim Thorpe? Maybe the greatest athlete of all-time?

I don't think James Naismith is the best basketball player ever - I wouldn't even put him in a top 100 list - even though he invented the game. I wouldn't put Jackie Robinson in my top 10 baseball players list - even though he was the first to break the color barrier. Just as I wouldn't put Grange in the top 10 list because he was the first college star to play "pro" ball. I use that term loosely because it really wasn't that organized or very professional. The only guy of that era that deserves to be mentioned is Thorpe for the reasons you mentioned. However, I still don't think I would take him over say someone like Marshall Faulk. I guess if "greatest" doesn't mean "best" then I am OK with this list - but I am pretty sure that Faulk, Dickerson, Simpson, Campbell, Smith, Dorsett, Tomlinson, Sayers, etc. etc. would run circles around Grange and Nagurski.

Well, I suppose Grange's legend is probably much bigger than his accomplishments in the league. So I can concede that point. But if you're going to go with "best" over "greatest" then you also have to put all those other guys (except Sayers) ahead of Jim Brown.

 

[Simayi]

I don't think James Naismith is the best basketball player ever - I wouldn't even put him in a top 100 list - even though he invented the game. I wouldn't put Jackie Robinson in my top 10 baseball players list - even though he was the first to break the color barrier. Just as I wouldn't put Grange in the top 10 list because he was the first college star to play "pro" ball. I use that term loosely because it really wasn't that organized or very professional. The only guy of that era that deserves to be mentioned is Thorpe for the reasons you mentioned. However, I still don't think I would take him over say someone like Marshall Faulk. I guess if "greatest" doesn't mean "best" then I am OK with this list - but I am pretty sure that Faulk, Dickerson, Simpson, Campbell, Smith, Dorsett, Tomlinson, Sayers, etc. etc. would run circles around Grange and Nagurski.

Naismith was a phys ed teacher who invented basketball and then later a coach, never a player.You mention Jackie Robinson for breaking the color barrier, but it's not the same thing. Grange was one of the greatest college players of all time and a legend back then. Jackie was a great ballplayer, but a better comparison would have been if Josh Gibson had signed to play in the majors.Context matters, and I believe if you placed someone with the mindset of a Thorpe or Brown into today's modern era and training techniques, they would be dominant here as well. Kind of like how no one knew how fast Deion was, because he would always just run fast enough to beat whoever he needed to beat, or how no one knew how good Roy Jones was in his prime because of the quality of competition.

 

[johnnyboy8102]

It is very clear that the out of the remaining 20 players that there will be just 7 defensive players. I went ahead and looked at the credentials of each of them and it is going to be extremely tough to put these guys in order.

Lawrence Taylor-10 pro bowls, 10 all pro selections (8 1st team selections), 3 time defensive player of the year, 1986 NFL MVP, 185 Career Approximate Value, 139 Career Weighted Value

D1ck Butkus-8 pro bowls, 6 all pro selections (5 1st team selections), 117 Career Approximate Value, 97 Career Weighted Value

Ray Lewis-11 pro bowls, 9 all pro selections (7 1st team selections), 2 time defensive player of the year, Super Bowl 35 MVP, 188 Career Approximate Value, 143 Career Weighted Value

Deacon Jones- 8 pro bowls, 6 all pro selections (5 1st team selections), 145 Career Approximate Value, 112 Career Weighted Value

Joe Greene-10 pro bowls, 7 all pro selections (5 1st team selections), 2 time defensive player of the year, 166 Career Approximate Value, 127 Career Weighted Value

Reggie White-13 pro bowls, 13 all pro selections (8 1st team selections), 2 time defensive player of the year, 234 Career Approximate Value, 163 Career Weighted Value

Ronnie Lott-10 pro bowls, 7 all pro selections (6 1st team selections), 159 Career Approximate Value, 117 Career Weighted Value.

How would you guys rank these remaining players on this list 1-7?

 

[Choke]

It is very clear that the out of the remaining 20 players that there will be just 7 defensive players. I went ahead and looked at the credentials of each of them and it is going to be extremely tough to put these guys in order.

Lawrence Taylor-10 pro bowls, 10 all pro selections (8 1st team selections), 3 time defensive player of the year, 1986 NFL MVP, 185 Career Approximate Value, 139 Career Weighted Value

D1ck Butkus-8 pro bowls, 6 all pro selections (5 1st team selections), 117 Career Approximate Value, 97 Career Weighted Value

Ray Lewis-11 pro bowls, 9 all pro selections (7 1st team selections), 2 time defensive player of the year, Super Bowl 35 MVP, 188 Career Approximate Value, 143 Career Weighted Value

Deacon Jones- 8 pro bowls, 6 all pro selections (5 1st team selections), 145 Career Approximate Value, 112 Career Weighted Value

Joe Greene-10 pro bowls, 7 all pro selections (5 1st team selections), 2 time defensive player of the year, 166 Career Approximate Value, 127 Career Weighted Value

Reggie White-13 pro bowls, 13 all pro selections (8 1st team selections), 2 time defensive player of the year, 234 Career Approximate Value, 163 Career Weighted Value

Ronnie Lott-10 pro bowls, 7 all pro selections (6 1st team selections), 159 Career Approximate Value, 117 Career Weighted Value.

How would you guys rank these remaining players on this list 1-7?

LTWhite

MeanJoe

Lott

Lewis

Butkus

Jones

 

[Tau837]

It is very clear that the out of the remaining 20 players that there will be just 7 defensive players. I went ahead and looked at the credentials of each of them and it is going to be extremely tough to put these guys in order.

Lawrence Taylor-10 pro bowls, 10 all pro selections (8 1st team selections), 3 time defensive player of the year, 1986 NFL MVP, 185 Career Approximate Value, 139 Career Weighted Value

D1ck Butkus-8 pro bowls, 6 all pro selections (5 1st team selections), 117 Career Approximate Value, 97 Career Weighted Value

Ray Lewis-11 pro bowls, 9 all pro selections (7 1st team selections), 2 time defensive player of the year, Super Bowl 35 MVP, 188 Career Approximate Value, 143 Career Weighted Value

Deacon Jones- 8 pro bowls, 6 all pro selections (5 1st team selections), 145 Career Approximate Value, 112 Career Weighted Value

Joe Greene-10 pro bowls, 7 all pro selections (5 1st team selections), 2 time defensive player of the year, 166 Career Approximate Value, 127 Career Weighted Value

Reggie White-13 pro bowls, 13 all pro selections (8 1st team selections), 2 time defensive player of the year, 234 Career Approximate Value, 163 Career Weighted Value

Ronnie Lott-10 pro bowls, 7 all pro selections (6 1st team selections), 159 Career Approximate Value, 117 Career Weighted Value.

How would you guys rank these remaining players on this list 1-7?

TaylorWhite

Greene

Lewis

Jones

Lott

Butkus

 

[sgtrobo]

When this got started I beta friend Sammy Baugh would be top 15. What are my chances?

i honestly think he or Jim Brown will be #1

 

[johnnyboy8102]

#17 Barry Sanders

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-tota...0-Barry-Sanders

 

[johnnyboy8102]

It is very clear that the out of the remaining 20 players that there will be just 7 defensive players. I went ahead and looked at the credentials of each of them and it is going to be extremely tough to put these guys in order.

Lawrence Taylor-10 pro bowls, 10 all pro selections (8 1st team selections), 3 time defensive player of the year, 1986 NFL MVP, 185 Career Approximate Value, 139 Career Weighted Value

D1ck Butkus-8 pro bowls, 6 all pro selections (5 1st team selections), 117 Career Approximate Value, 97 Career Weighted Value

Ray Lewis-11 pro bowls, 9 all pro selections (7 1st team selections), 2 time defensive player of the year, Super Bowl 35 MVP, 188 Career Approximate Value, 143 Career Weighted Value

Deacon Jones- 8 pro bowls, 6 all pro selections (5 1st team selections), 145 Career Approximate Value, 112 Career Weighted Value

Joe Greene-10 pro bowls, 7 all pro selections (5 1st team selections), 2 time defensive player of the year, 166 Career Approximate Value, 127 Career Weighted Value

Reggie White-13 pro bowls, 13 all pro selections (8 1st team selections), 2 time defensive player of the year, 234 Career Approximate Value, 163 Career Weighted Value

Ronnie Lott-10 pro bowls, 7 all pro selections (6 1st team selections), 159 Career Approximate Value, 117 Career Weighted Value.

How would you guys rank these remaining players on this list 1-7?

WhiteLT

Lewis

Jones

Greene

Lott

Butkus

 

[sn0mm1s]

I don't think James Naismith is the best basketball player ever - I wouldn't even put him in a top 100 list - even though he invented the game. I wouldn't put Jackie Robinson in my top 10 baseball players list - even though he was the first to break the color barrier. Just as I wouldn't put Grange in the top 10 list because he was the first college star to play "pro" ball. I use that term loosely because it really wasn't that organized or very professional. The only guy of that era that deserves to be mentioned is Thorpe for the reasons you mentioned. However, I still don't think I would take him over say someone like Marshall Faulk. I guess if "greatest" doesn't mean "best" then I am OK with this list - but I am pretty sure that Faulk, Dickerson, Simpson, Campbell, Smith, Dorsett, Tomlinson, Sayers, etc. etc. would run circles around Grange and Nagurski.

Naismith was a phys ed teacher who invented basketball and then later a coach, never a player.You mention Jackie Robinson for breaking the color barrier, but it's not the same thing. Grange was one of the greatest college players of all time and a legend back then. Jackie was a great ballplayer, but a better comparison would have been if Josh Gibson had signed to play in the majors.Context matters, and I believe if you placed someone with the mindset of a Thorpe or Brown into today's modern era and training techniques, they would be dominant here as well. Kind of like how no one knew how fast Deion was, because he would always just run fast enough to beat whoever he needed to beat, or how no one knew how good Roy Jones was in his prime because of the quality of competition.

Actually, it is the exact opposite. Context rarely, if ever, matters when "experts" put together lists like this. How long had college football been around when Grange played and how many teams were there? I don't think the forward pass was even part of the game until the early 1900's. Basically, Grange was one of the best RBs in the history of the game - but the game had only been around a few years in any sort of similarity to what we see today. I have no doubt that Thorpe and Brown would be great players if they played today - but if context truly mattered then voting would take into account the competition that they played against - which it doesn't. Jim Brown would not lead the league in rushing every year if he had to compete against Sanders, Smith, and Davis.

 

[Raider Nation]

Brett Favre #20. John Madden not pleased.

 

[Raider Nation]

This looks like it will be one of the finest NFL Films presentations ever. It will be interesting to see where they stand on one of this board's greatest debates: Emmitt vs. Barry.

Barry wins. No surprise to anyone who has watched football.

 

[Go deep]

Marino behind Brady is ludicrous. Marino was the best passer ever. I know the ultimate goal in the NFL is to win a SB, but when you are making a top 100 best player list, it really shouldnt matter. Marino would have won as many or more SB's as Brady or Elway if he played on those teams.

My top 5

1. Jim Brown

2. Jerry Rice

3. Sammy Baugh

4. Lawrence Taylor

5. I cant decide between 4 or 5 guys

 

[Raider Nation]

Nice presentation for Munoz. STUD!

 

[johnnyboy8102]

#20 Brett Favre-QB

#19 Bronco Nagurski-RB

#18 Ray Lewis-LB

#17 Barry Sanders-RB

#16 Otto Graham-QB

#15 Deacon Jones-DE

#14 Sammy Baugh-QB

#13 Joe Greene-DT

#12 Anthony Munoz-OT

#11 Ronnie Lott-DB

My Final 10

Joe Montana

Johnny Unitas

Peyton Manning

Jim Brown

Walter Payton

Jerry Rice

Don Hutson

Lawrence Taylor

D1ck Butkus

Reggie White

 

[johnnyboy8102]

I think Ronnie Lott is a little too high.

 

[Go deep]

#20 Brett Favre-QB

#19 Bronco Nagurski-RB

#18 Ray Lewis-LB

#17 Barry Sanders-RB

#16 Otto Graham-QB

#15 Deacon Jones-DE

#14 Sammy Baugh-QB

#13 Joe Greene-DT

#12 Anthony Munoz-OT

#11 Ronnie Lott-DB

My Final 10

Joe Montana

Johnny Unitas

Peyton Manning

Jim Brown

Walter Payton

Jerry Rice

Don Hutson

Lawrence Taylor

D1ck Butkus

Reggie White

Baugh at 14 is robbery, he should be in the top 5.Guess i have to change my top 5

1. Jimmy Brown

2. Jerry Rice

3. Lawrence Taylor

4. Johnny U

5. Joe Montana

Thats what i think it will be, not what it should be.

 

[Slevin Kelevra]

Peyton "choker" Manning in the first 10

You gotta be kidding me........

 

[Raider Nation]

My Final 10

Joe Montana

Johnny Unitas

Peyton Manning

Jim Brown

Walter Payton

Jerry Rice

Don Hutson

Lawrence Taylor

D1ck Butkus

Reggie White

It would be quite an upset if those aren't the exact ten. I'd rank them like this:1) Brown

2) Rice

3) Montana

4) Taylor

5) Unitas

6) Manning

7) White

8) Payton

9) Hutson

10) Butkus