Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
All-Decade team (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter AB in DC
- Start date
Tau837
Footballguy
Interesting to look at these choices and think about HOF. Some thoughts:1. Both QBs will be HOFers.
2. It is possible that only 1 of the 4 RBs (Tomlinson) will make the HOF.
3. All 4 of the WRs may make the HOF. Holt is the only one who is questionable, the others are all locks.
4. Both TEs will be HOFers.
5. All 4 OTs will probably be HOFers.
6. All 4 Gs will probably be HOFers.
7. It is possible neither center will make the HOF.
8. Only 1 DE (Strahan) is a lock for the HOF IMO. Taylor has a shot.
9. Sapp is the only DT who is a lock for the HOF IMO.
10. Brooks and Lewis are locks for the HOF. Thomas may have a decent shot. Urlacher, too, though he could really help himself from here forward. The others, no chance.
11. Barber and Champ should be HOFers.
12. Dawkins and Reed will likely make the HOF, and Polamalu is on track to have a good chance. Even Sharper could have a chance given his strong season this year (and the fact that he's not done).
LawFitz
Footballguy
And CWood is not? I know the guy has been an #### at times during his career, but I think he's been better than both of the other two when you consider overall playmaking, including run support.
Tau837
Footballguy
I don't think he's been better than either Barber or Bailey, both of whom have one more 1st team All Pro selection than Woodson has. That said, his DPOY will help. Though IMO it should have gone to Revis.
- Polamalu is on track to have a good chance? In what universe? He's been one of the best defensive players in football for the last 5 years. If he stays healthy he's a lock.
- DeMarcus Ware has no shot at the HOF? He averages 13 sacks a year. He's a prototypical rush LB - with more sacks than LT thru 5 years.
- Ronde Barber will likely make it, though I think he's a beneficiary of playing in a cover-2 scheme. Dude struggled in man coverage his entire career.
- DeMarcus Ware has no shot at the HOF? He averages 13 sacks a year. He's a prototypical rush LB - with more sacks than LT thru 5 years.
- Ronde Barber will likely make it, though I think he's a beneficiary of playing in a cover-2 scheme. Dude struggled in man coverage his entire career.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
I'm not surprised, but I do take issue with a few of the thought processes on here:
1) Going with quantity over quality in an inconsistent manner. At RB, guys like Faulk and Holmes and Barber were passed over for a compiler like Lewis. But then DeMarcus Ware gets in over well, anyone? Or Larry Allen or Willie Roaf? Warren Sapp? I'd favor quality, and putting Lewis on this team is a slap in the face to the three RBs mentioned above.
2) They chose to take exactly one 4-3 OLB. I actually think this is a defensible position, but over half of the league's linebackers are 4-3 OLBs. Taking one 4-3 OLB out of 6 is a convenient way to get the star players (4-3 MLBs, 3-4 OLBs) on the team.
3) Putting Richard Seymour as a DT. This one is absurd. Howie Long and Bruce Smith and Lee Roy Selmon made all-pro teams... as defensive ends. Why? Because they were defensive ends in a 3-4 front, just like Seymour. Sure, Seymour has many of the responsibilities of a 4-3 DT, but DeMarcus Ware and Joey Porter have many of the responsibilities of a 4-3 DE.
It's obvious what's going on here -- the Committee tried to put as many glamour position guys on the team as possible. Call Seymour a DT so you can get more DEs on the roster, but don't call Ware/Porter DEs so you can't get more 3-4 OLBs and 4-3 DEs on the team and not have to take 4-3 OLBs. Take FOUR pass rushers at DT, ignoring that the main role -- even if it's the non-glory role -- of a DT is to take up space. To ignore the huge contributions made ny nose tackles like Casey Hampton, Pat Williams, Jamal Williams, Vince Wilfork, Kris Jenkins, among others, is crazy to me. We can do with two of those guys and no Sapp or Freeney (putting Seymour in at DE).
It's always easy to go with the stats guys and the glamour position players, but I'm disappointed the HOF Committee went down this route. My last complaint would be keeping Terrance McGee off this team for no reason, even though he was a better KR than Dante Hall and you already have Hall on the freakin team.
ETA: I guess we should at least be glad that Alstott didn't make the team over someone like Neal.
1) Going with quantity over quality in an inconsistent manner. At RB, guys like Faulk and Holmes and Barber were passed over for a compiler like Lewis. But then DeMarcus Ware gets in over well, anyone? Or Larry Allen or Willie Roaf? Warren Sapp? I'd favor quality, and putting Lewis on this team is a slap in the face to the three RBs mentioned above.
2) They chose to take exactly one 4-3 OLB. I actually think this is a defensible position, but over half of the league's linebackers are 4-3 OLBs. Taking one 4-3 OLB out of 6 is a convenient way to get the star players (4-3 MLBs, 3-4 OLBs) on the team.
3) Putting Richard Seymour as a DT. This one is absurd. Howie Long and Bruce Smith and Lee Roy Selmon made all-pro teams... as defensive ends. Why? Because they were defensive ends in a 3-4 front, just like Seymour. Sure, Seymour has many of the responsibilities of a 4-3 DT, but DeMarcus Ware and Joey Porter have many of the responsibilities of a 4-3 DE.
It's obvious what's going on here -- the Committee tried to put as many glamour position guys on the team as possible. Call Seymour a DT so you can get more DEs on the roster, but don't call Ware/Porter DEs so you can't get more 3-4 OLBs and 4-3 DEs on the team and not have to take 4-3 OLBs. Take FOUR pass rushers at DT, ignoring that the main role -- even if it's the non-glory role -- of a DT is to take up space. To ignore the huge contributions made ny nose tackles like Casey Hampton, Pat Williams, Jamal Williams, Vince Wilfork, Kris Jenkins, among others, is crazy to me. We can do with two of those guys and no Sapp or Freeney (putting Seymour in at DE).
It's always easy to go with the stats guys and the glamour position players, but I'm disappointed the HOF Committee went down this route. My last complaint would be keeping Terrance McGee off this team for no reason, even though he was a better KR than Dante Hall and you already have Hall on the freakin team.
ETA: I guess we should at least be glad that Alstott didn't make the team over someone like Neal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Another case where spanning 2 decades can keep you off of these type of lists: Marshall Faulk
Jason Wood
Zoo York
About the only one I REALLY can't fathom is Jamal Lewis. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is pretty good considering how many names they had to come up with. 
KnowledgeReignsSupreme
Footballguy
Really?
KnowledgeReignsSupreme
Footballguy
First guy I thought of that got hosed by that.
KnowledgeReignsSupreme
Footballguy
I'd put him or Tiki Barber in over Jamal Lewis without question.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
I think your standards are too low here; the majority of these picks were no-brainers. Brady/Manning/Tomlinson/4WRs/most of the OL/Strahan/Taylor/Brooks/Lewis/Urlacher/Bailey/Barber/Dawkins/Reed. Lots of obvious picks.About the only one I REALLY can't fathom is Jamal Lewis. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is pretty good considering how many names they had to come up with.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Yeah, I don't get the Jamal Lewis pick either...no way should he have made it over Marshall Faulk and Priest Holmes.
And THANK GOD Hines Ward didn't make it (as he shouldn't have) or Steelers fans would be running their yaps big time.
And THANK GOD Hines Ward didn't make it (as he shouldn't have) or Steelers fans would be running their yaps big time.
Tau837
Footballguy
There are only 7 modern era safeties in the HOF. Polamalu only has 2 1st team All Pro selections so far. He is no lock as of now. Hence my comment that he is on track. It will help that he plays for the Steelers both because of their team success and because they are a premier franchise.You're right, I shouldn't have said Ware has no shot. But he has a long way to go of maintaining his play to get that shot. Only 7 modern era outside LBs are in the HOF, with Brooks set to make it 8. It's not easy to get in.
I have more of a problem with DeMarcus Ware than I do Jamal Lewis.
Lewis put up 1k yards in every season he played except for 15 games in 2005 when he played for an absolutely terrible Ravens team (906 yards) and this past season playing 9 games with the Browns. Remember, he also put up 2066 rushing yards in 2003.
Lewis put up 1k yards in every season he played except for 15 games in 2005 when he played for an absolutely terrible Ravens team (906 yards) and this past season playing 9 games with the Browns. Remember, he also put up 2066 rushing yards in 2003.
KnowledgeReignsSupreme
Footballguy
Tiki Barber has almost identical stats as Jamal Lewis for the decade and did it in two less years.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Realistically Marshall Faulk, Brian Westbrook, Tiki Barber and Priest Holmes all had better rationale for being on this team than Lewis.
Zoomanji
Footballguy
But yet D. Ware makes it. And he's not even a LB, he's essentially a DE
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
Agreed. And Dilfer got snubbed big time
On a more serious note, glad to see Lo Neal on the team 
-QG
Last edited by a moderator:
KnowledgeReignsSupreme
Footballguy
He absolutely deserved it. Look up the stats of his halfbacks with and without him on the team. They always had much better numbers with him. You could argue that LT is on this list because of him. Great player.On a more serious note, glad to see Lo Neal on the team-QG
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
I suppose you could argue that, but it would be a pretty foolish argument IMO.He absolutely deserved it. Look up the stats of his halfbacks with and without him on the team. They always had much better numbers with him. You could argue that LT is on this list because of him. Great player.On a more serious note, glad to see Lo Neal on the team
-QG
TC
Footballguy
Whow.. Getting membership in your HoF is much simpler than getting into mine.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Even putting aside the other contributions -- rushing, receiving, and pass blocking -- I'm not sure if any of us are really capable of determining whether or not Neal was the best lead blocker of the decade. Tony Richardson blocked for more 1,000 yard rushers and Fred Beasley blocked for just as many; William Henderson and Mack Strong were great lead blockers, too. For whatever reason, Neal gets the rep as the best run blocking FB, and while I'm not saying it's not deserved, I'm not willing to just agree with conventional wisdom.And obviously there were better rushing fullbacks, receiving fullbacks, and all-around fullbacks. Neal is definitely a worthy choice, but I'm not sure Richie Anderson or Mack Strong or Fred Beasley or Tony Richardson wouldn't have been, either.He absolutely deserved it. Look up the stats of his halfbacks with and without him on the team. They always had much better numbers with him. You could argue that LT is on this list because of him. Great player.On a more serious note, glad to see Lo Neal on the team
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
dgreen
Footballguy
That 2,000 yard season has to be a major factor in the voter's minds. Other than that, Lewis really doesn't have too much. Outside of that season, he has few good seasons. He had a nice SB, but nothing great.
If he hadn't missed a whole year and added another 1300-yard season then he might have a stronger case. But, I definitely agree with others that Holmes and Westbrook have better resumes from 2000-2009. I'm a homer, but I'd even say Portis' resume is better. He has about 800 less yards from scrimmage and 16 more TDs in 24 fewer games than Lewis.
If he hadn't missed a whole year and added another 1300-yard season then he might have a stronger case. But, I definitely agree with others that Holmes and Westbrook have better resumes from 2000-2009. I'm a homer, but I'd even say Portis' resume is better. He has about 800 less yards from scrimmage and 16 more TDs in 24 fewer games than Lewis.
dgreen
Footballguy
After everything you say, how can you then say it's obvious there were better all-around fullbacks?Even putting aside the other contributions -- rushing, receiving, and pass blocking -- I'm not sure if any of us are really capable of determining whether or not Neal was the best lead blocker of the decade. Tony Richardson blocked for more 1,000 yard rushers and Fred Beasley blocked for just as many; William Henderson and Mack Strong were great lead blockers, too. For whatever reason, Neal gets the rep as the best run blocking FB, and while I'm not saying it's not deserved, I'm not willing to just agree with conventional wisdom.And obviously there were better rushing fullbacks, receiving fullbacks, and all-around fullbacks.He absolutely deserved it. Look up the stats of his halfbacks with and without him on the team. They always had much better numbers with him. You could argue that LT is on this list because of him. Great player.On a more serious note, glad to see Lo Neal on the team
-QG
Neal is definitely a worthy choice, but I'm not sure Richie Anderson or Mack Strong or Fred Beasley or Tony Richardson wouldn't have been, either.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Hmm.... maybe all-around was the wrong one. Perhaps complete or well-rounded would be more accurate.A one-dimensional player may indeed be the best at his position even if his game was not complete, if that one dimension is really important and he was really good in that one dimension. That may describe Neal at the fullback position. But he wasn't the most complete FB.After everything you say, how can you then say it's obvious there were better all-around fullbacks?Even putting aside the other contributions -- rushing, receiving, and pass blocking -- I'm not sure if any of us are really capable of determining whether or not Neal was the best lead blocker of the decade. Tony Richardson blocked for more 1,000 yard rushers and Fred Beasley blocked for just as many; William Henderson and Mack Strong were great lead blockers, too. For whatever reason, Neal gets the rep as the best run blocking FB, and while I'm not saying it's not deserved, I'm not willing to just agree with conventional wisdom.And obviously there were better rushing fullbacks, receiving fullbacks, and all-around fullbacks.He absolutely deserved it. Look up the stats of his halfbacks with and without him on the team. They always had much better numbers with him. You could argue that LT is on this list because of him. Great player.On a more serious note, glad to see Lo Neal on the team
-QG
Neal is definitely a worthy choice, but I'm not sure Richie Anderson or Mack Strong or Fred Beasley or Tony Richardson wouldn't have been, either.
Tau837
Footballguy
KnowledgeReignsSupreme
Footballguy
Looked pretty solid to me and I'm usually tough to convince. Any list of all-decade players is most likely going to be full of future HOFers. Not to mention that these are done by the HOF selection committee members.
Last edited by a moderator:
KnowledgeReignsSupreme
Footballguy
Just checked the 1990s list and Marshall didn't make that one.Running Back Barry Sanders
Running Back Emmitt Smith
Running Back Terrell Davis
Running Back Thurman Thomas
He'd probably make the 1990s list over Terrell Davis if his entire career was in the 1990s. He'd definitely be in the 2000s version.
ETA: Willie Roaf made the 90s and 00s all decade list. Larry Allen and Warren Sapp also.
:stud:
Last edited by a moderator:
Capella
Footballguy
One has to be a man to man cornerback to be considered valid now?-Monte Kiffin and Tony Dungy recognized his strengths and drafted him for the system they were running. And he was a perfect fit.
That's not always true.Mel Blount and Ted Hendricks both made the 1980s All-Decade Team and each retired after the 1983 season.
dgreen
Footballguy
That doesn't make All Decade Teams stupid. People just have to recognize them for what they are.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Tau837
Footballguy
IMO Harrison should have made it over Polamalu and Saturday should have made it over Kreutz. Otherwise, I agree with your analysis.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Hey, I'm voting for Saturday, too.
One day I plan to most a post about all the very good players who were underrated their whole careers because they played on great teams, were on primetime a lot, made big plays in the post-season, and were part of dominant units. I'll title the post: "Rodney Harrison."All kidding aside, I know we've been down this road before. I just think Harrison hasn't been underrated. Here are all the safeties to be named first-team All-Pro from '96 to '07:
Game Game Misc Misc Misc MiscRk Player From To Tm Lg G GS Yrs PB AP1 AV1 Brian Dawkins 1996 2007 PHI NFL 167 166 12 6 4 1102 LeRoy Butler 1996 2001 GNB NFL 89 89 6 3 3 653 Ed Reed 2002 2007 RAV NFL 90 89 6 4 3 684 Rodney Harrison 1996 2007 TOT NFL 154 153 12 2 2 885 John Lynch 1996 2007 TOT NFL 184 181 12 9 2 1226 Bob Sanders 2004 2007 CLT NFL 39 37 4 2 2 307 Mike Brown 2000 2007 CHI NFL 85 84 8 1 1 548 Carnell Lake 1996 2001 TOT NFL 76 62 5 3 1 469 Lawyer Milloy 1996 2007 TOT NFL 187 181 12 4 1 9610 Troy Polamalu 2003 2007 PIT NFL 72 56 5 4 1 4911 Darren Sharper 1997 2007 TOT NFL 167 151 11 4 1 9212 Roy Williams 2002 2007 DAL NFL 95 93 6 5 1 6413 Darren Woodson 1996 2003 DAL NFL 114 113 8 3 1 6214 Rod Woodson* 1996 2003 TOT NFL 120 120 8 5 1 84Butler's career doesn't really overlap; of the other guys, I think Dawkins and Reed were better at their peak. FWIW, at least as far as Rodney the Patriot goes, I think Bob Sanders and Polamalu were better at their peaks, too. I know you don't like Lynch; I used to disagree with you but I'm starting to come around to your position. Grading safeties is tough. Now, FWIW, I don't have any more faith in the grades by the Associated Press than in the grades by someone like you or other members of this forum. But leaving the Pro Bowl/All-Pro stuff aside (and IMO, the fact that Harrison made only two Pro Bowls is more damning than his "only" two APs -- whether he's hated or not, almost every HOF caliber player makes a bunch of Pro Bowls), how did his teams perform?
In '03 the Pats led the league in points allowed, but they had Seymour, Ted Washington and McGinest on the line, Bruschi and Vrabel at linebacker, and Law in the secondary. And they were coached by Belichick. That's a lot of talent. They were a better pass D than run D, and that's not where Harrison excelled.
In '04, NE again had a great D, but they had (playing a 3-4) Warren, Wilfork and Seymour, McGinest, Ted Johnson, Bruschi and Vrabel, Law ans Samuel at CB and Harrison.
Harrison was playing on teams with a lot of talent around him. As a Chargers fan, you know how hard it is for a great safety to make an impact with not much talent in front of him; that was Harrison's bio for much of his career (he made a lot of tackles, but he wasn't turning SD into a defensive powerhouse).
In short, Harrison's exactly the sort of player --vocal, in the news type of player, on a team that's always on primetime, was always winning games, and was extremely popular -- that would get too many PBs and 1APs. Sort of like a Charles Haley. I don't see the systemic bias that kept Harrison's post-season numbers down, and I don't see how he was responsible for making those Pats Ds, great. There were lots of pieces there and quite the orchestrator.
rock753
Footballguy
Champ and Barber were both known for there run support in their prime and even today.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
I think Woodson really resurrected his career with his performance in '09. He mostly got by on reputation for the past few seasons, but now I think it might just look like he was a very good player for a decade. Many thought he was one of the most overrated players in the league just two seasons ago, and that he was a liability on defense.
Tau837
Footballguy
I gathered that you were saying that multiple candidates were arguably legitimate choices, though you said you were surprised Saturday didn't make it. I was simply saying that I think Saturday was the guy (after Mawae).Hey, I'm voting for Saturday, too.
Tau837
Footballguy
Yes, we've had this discussion. First, I'm glad you're coming around on Lynch. He is quite possibly the most overrated player of his era, but that's another discussion.I think Harrison's career is an interesting contrast in extremes in terms of his surrounding cast. He played his prime in San Diego on a defense with a major lack of talent other than Seau. He and Seau weren't able to make those defenses great. But if that is a knock on Harrison, why is it not a knock on Seau, who I believe is universally accepted as a future HOFer? On the flip side, if Harrison's stats are somewhat discounted due to a lack of surrounding playmakers (besides Seau), why are Seau's not similarly discounted? As one example, Harrison had a better season than Seau in 2000 for a terrible Chargers team. Seau was 1st team All Pro while Harrison didn't even make the Pro Bowl. I'm not claiming a conspiracy, but Pro Bowls and All Pro selections are voted on by humans... I certainly think it's possible that if Harrison was disliked he might not have gotten the votes he deserved. His reputation was that he was a dirty player, and I could certainly see that causing voters to pass him over.
(Note, I agree Seau is a deserving future HOFer; I'm not trying to say otherwise.)
Then Harrison went to New England and made 1st team All Pro in his first season there. What was so different from 2000 and 2001? Same player playing the same type of game, who arguably played better in 2000 and/or 2001. His statistics were similar to prior years despite switching from a weak supporting cast to a strong one, as you outlined. What does that mean?
I agree Dawkins and Reed were better at their peaks. But they are free safeties, as is/was Sharper. IMO the job descriptions are different enough that it is reasonable to split the positions and compare free safeties to other free safeties and strong safeties to other strong safeties.
That leaves Sanders and Polamalu as Harrison's competition at strong safety. Given that Bob Sanders has only played more than 6 games in a season twice, I don't think he really measures up to Harrison, regardless of whether his peak was better. So that leaves Polamalu, which brings us full circle. As you noted in your blog post, Harrison started 28 more regular season games in the decade... about 35% more games than Polamalu. And IMO Harrison's peak years were as good or better than Polamalu's... I posted the comparison last time we discussed this. Furthermore, Harrison was utterly dominant in the 2003 & 2004 championship runs for the Pats... much moreso than Polamalu was in his postseason career thus far.
All that said, I have found that basically no one agrees with me, so I'm not surprised that Harrison was left off the team.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Solid rebuttal, JWB.
I'm not sure if I have anything better to go on than my gut feeling, but it "felt" like Polamalu was a more impact player than Harrison. But yes, I could be wrong. It seems to me like Pittsburgh always has great OLBs and always has solid DL, but Polamalu is the one guy that's sort of stood out over the last 20 years as a Steeler.
Since Cowher arrived in 1992, nine different Steelers LBs have made the Pro Bowl; they have 21 appearances in that span, which means on average Pittsburgh has sent more than one LB to the Pro Bowl since Cowher arrived. Since Carnell Lake in '97, though, no other DB besides Polamalu has made the PB. And it just looks like he's the difference between an amazing defense and a very good one.
Note that this isn't the best of reasoning -- Vince Young may have been the guy to put the Titans over the top, but he wasn't more valuable than Chris Johnson. Just saying this is how I feel.
I'm not sure if I have anything better to go on than my gut feeling, but it "felt" like Polamalu was a more impact player than Harrison. But yes, I could be wrong. It seems to me like Pittsburgh always has great OLBs and always has solid DL, but Polamalu is the one guy that's sort of stood out over the last 20 years as a Steeler.
Since Cowher arrived in 1992, nine different Steelers LBs have made the Pro Bowl; they have 21 appearances in that span, which means on average Pittsburgh has sent more than one LB to the Pro Bowl since Cowher arrived. Since Carnell Lake in '97, though, no other DB besides Polamalu has made the PB. And it just looks like he's the difference between an amazing defense and a very good one.
Note that this isn't the best of reasoning -- Vince Young may have been the guy to put the Titans over the top, but he wasn't more valuable than Chris Johnson. Just saying this is how I feel.
MarshallRob
Footballguy
This list makes me more sympathetic towards Terrell Davis' Hall of Fame argument. Save for Tomlinson he was better than every running back on the 2000's All-Decade Team.
fissure man
Footballguy
Not trying to be a complete jerk here at all, but I am literally shocked you typed that.
