What's new
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.

All-Time NFL Best (1 Viewer)

I like your lists, good job, but Chris Carter shouldn't be that high at #3.
Thanks. I found it hardest to rank the WR's, they have the least amount of control in their respective situations. As far as Carter being ranked too high....personally I never liked him (#######' Buckeye), but I always had great respect for his game. Numbers wise, I believe he's only behind Rice for most of the major WR records. Cris Carter is only keeping that spot warm though. Eventually, Harrison, Owens, Moss, and Holt will probably all pass him. I think it's interesting that 4 of the all-time great WR's are playing right now. This probably has alot to do with how the NFL game has evolved.I was hoping for a few more lists, but it seems people just want to debate between Elway, Montana, Marino, and Favre. I don't think there's a need to tear another player down, just to make your favorite look better. You see alot of this in debates on these boards (I've always found it amusing though). Bottom line, any player that makes an all-time top 10 had to be very special. I think after that it's basically preference. I loved Elway and I think he's the best ever. However, the other 9 guys were also terrific. I loved Barry Sanders, but I acknowlege that Emmitt was one of the best ever!It's interesting how many all-time greats are currently playing. Manning could end up being the best ever, and I think Tom Brady has a good chance at the top 5 if he wins another Super Bowl. Tomlinson is headed for the top 5, and maybe....dare I say....BEST EVER, if he can stay healthy. Marvin Harrison, Randy Moss, T.O., and Tory Holt are def 4 of the best to ever play the WR position. Could Antonio Gates and Tony Gonzo be two of the greatest TE's?One question I have for the group though is.....how great do you rank Curtis Martin? Jerome Bettis? I think C-Mart is top 10, and Bettis just outside looking in. Any other lists?
I'm not convinced that Cmartin is HOF caliber, much less top ten. JBettis isn't even close. If this is all time, you gotta consider HOF guys of much earlier eras: Red Grange, Bronko Nagurski, an especially Jim Thorpe. In the modern era, you gotta think about Marcus Allen, Earl Campbell, Czonka, Hornung, Riggins, Franco Harris, etc.I can accept that the best QB's and WR's have come from the past 10-20 years, because the style of the game today is so passing- heavy. But, I don't believe that many of the best RB's of all time played in the past 10 years. On your list, Jim Brown and OJ are the only player whom I don't have clear recollections of watching him play live. I think the love for CMartin is mostly a fondness due to familiarity.
 
I like your lists, good job, but Chris Carter shouldn't be that high at #3.
Thanks. I found it hardest to rank the WR's, they have the least amount of control in their respective situations. As far as Carter being ranked too high....personally I never liked him (#######' Buckeye), but I always had great respect for his game. Numbers wise, I believe he's only behind Rice for most of the major WR records. Cris Carter is only keeping that spot warm though. Eventually, Harrison, Owens, Moss, and Holt will probably all pass him. I think it's interesting that 4 of the all-time great WR's are playing right now. This probably has alot to do with how the NFL game has evolved.I was hoping for a few more lists, but it seems people just want to debate between Elway, Montana, Marino, and Favre. I don't think there's a need to tear another player down, just to make your favorite look better. You see alot of this in debates on these boards (I've always found it amusing though). Bottom line, any player that makes an all-time top 10 had to be very special. I think after that it's basically preference. I loved Elway and I think he's the best ever. However, the other 9 guys were also terrific. I loved Barry Sanders, but I acknowlege that Emmitt was one of the best ever!

It's interesting how many all-time greats are currently playing. Manning could end up being the best ever, and I think Tom Brady has a good chance at the top 5 if he wins another Super Bowl. Tomlinson is headed for the top 5, and maybe....dare I say....BEST EVER, if he can stay healthy. Marvin Harrison, Randy Moss, T.O., and Tory Holt are def 4 of the best to ever play the WR position. Could Antonio Gates and Tony Gonzo be two of the greatest TE's?

One question I have for the group though is.....how great do you rank Curtis Martin? Jerome Bettis? I think C-Mart is top 10, and Bettis just outside looking in. Any other lists?
I'm not convinced that Cmartin is HOF caliber, much less top ten. JBettis isn't even close. If this is all time, you gotta consider HOF guys of much earlier eras: Red Grange, Bronko Nagurski, an especially Jim Thorpe. In the modern era, you gotta think about Marcus Allen, Earl Campbell, Czonka, Hornung, Riggins, Franco Harris, etc.I can accept that the best QB's and WR's have come from the past 10-20 years, because the style of the game today is so passing- heavy. But, I don't believe that many of the best RB's of all time played in the past 10 years. On your list, Jim Brown and OJ are the only player whom I don't have clear recollections of watching him play live. I think the love for CMartin is mostly a fondness due to familiarity.
Interesting opinion, I can buy that. Although, I believe C-Mart is in the top 5 for all-time rushing yards, and I think Bettis is in the top 10 as well. These guys were incredibly durable, which is rare for the position. I guess it comes down to how you determine GREATNESS. Personally, I reward durability. RB's such as Gale Sayers, Terrell Davis, Bo Jackson, Billy Simms, ect., may have had more overall talent, but they just didn't play long enough....IMHO.

 
I like your lists, good job, but Chris Carter shouldn't be that high at #3.
Thanks. I found it hardest to rank the WR's, they have the least amount of control in their respective situations. As far as Carter being ranked too high....personally I never liked him (#######' Buckeye), but I always had great respect for his game. Numbers wise, I believe he's only behind Rice for most of the major WR records. Cris Carter is only keeping that spot warm though. Eventually, Harrison, Owens, Moss, and Holt will probably all pass him. I think it's interesting that 4 of the all-time great WR's are playing right now. This probably has alot to do with how the NFL game has evolved.I was hoping for a few more lists, but it seems people just want to debate between Elway, Montana, Marino, and Favre. I don't think there's a need to tear another player down, just to make your favorite look better. You see alot of this in debates on these boards (I've always found it amusing though). Bottom line, any player that makes an all-time top 10 had to be very special. I think after that it's basically preference. I loved Elway and I think he's the best ever. However, the other 9 guys were also terrific. I loved Barry Sanders, but I acknowlege that Emmitt was one of the best ever!

It's interesting how many all-time greats are currently playing. Manning could end up being the best ever, and I think Tom Brady has a good chance at the top 5 if he wins another Super Bowl. Tomlinson is headed for the top 5, and maybe....dare I say....BEST EVER, if he can stay healthy. Marvin Harrison, Randy Moss, T.O., and Tory Holt are def 4 of the best to ever play the WR position. Could Antonio Gates and Tony Gonzo be two of the greatest TE's?

One question I have for the group though is.....how great do you rank Curtis Martin? Jerome Bettis? I think C-Mart is top 10, and Bettis just outside looking in. Any other lists?
I'm not convinced that Cmartin is HOF caliber, much less top ten. JBettis isn't even close. If this is all time, you gotta consider HOF guys of much earlier eras: Red Grange, Bronko Nagurski, an especially Jim Thorpe. In the modern era, you gotta think about Marcus Allen, Earl Campbell, Czonka, Hornung, Riggins, Franco Harris, etc.I can accept that the best QB's and WR's have come from the past 10-20 years, because the style of the game today is so passing- heavy. But, I don't believe that many of the best RB's of all time played in the past 10 years. On your list, Jim Brown and OJ are the only player whom I don't have clear recollections of watching him play live. I think the love for CMartin is mostly a fondness due to familiarity.
Interesting opinion, I can buy that. Although, I believe C-Mart is in the top 5 for all-time rushing yards, and I think Bettis is in the top 10 as well. These guys were incredibly durable, which is rare for the position. I guess it comes down to how you determine GREATNESS. Personally, I reward durability. RB's such as Gale Sayers, Terrell Davis, Bo Jackson, Billy Simms, ect., may have had more overall talent, but they just didn't play long enough....IMHO.
I don't think it's fair to put any emphasis on durability when comparing across eras, given modern medicine and all. It really strikes me as odd that 9 out of the top 10 RB's of all time spent a big chunk of their careers in the 80's and 90's.Personally, I define greatness as having memoriable/historic plays: Marcus Allen's big run in the SB, Franco Harris and the Immaculate Reception, TD's 3 TD's vs Green Bay, Bo Jackson putting Bozworth on his can, Gale Sayers and what he did in the open field, Elway and the Drive, Montana and the Catch, etc.

The magnitude of great, historic plays are way amplified in the playoffs and SB, so I put alot of weight on playoff sucess. Many disagree with me, but to me a short, brilliant career with many playoff appearances is much more note-worthy than a long career of better than mediocre.

 
You make some valid points, and I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of what you're saying. It's extremely hard to compare era's.

Example = Who was greater....Curtis Martin, or Jim Thorpe? (apples & oranges here?)

Do we penalize Martin for playing in a day of "modern medicine"? Do we reward Thorpe for not? Personally, I've always thought that Thorpe was regarded as GREAT because of what he did in his athletic career as a whole (college sports, baseball, football, and track). Thorpe played in about 50 games of pro football, and had 10 TD's I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Martin played 3x's as many games, is 4th all-time in rushing, and he has 100 TD's.

"It really strikes me as odd that 9 out of the top 10 RB's of all time spent a big chunk of their careers in the 80's and 90's."

Well, I'm 33....and I didn't start watching football till the late 70's/early 80's. :coffee: You are probably much older, and have more of a connection to those old-timers. I DID give many of the guys you mentioned an honorable mention. My dad still says that Unitas was the best ever, but I've only seen him play in old hi-lights.

"The magnitude of great, historic plays are way amplified in the playoffs and SB, so I put alot of weight on playoff sucess."

Excellent point, however....I personally only hold QB's accountable for playoff, and Super Bowl success. QB's have their hands on the ball every play.....a RB may get 20 touches, a WR may get only 5-10.

Anyway.....it's an interesting discussion, and I appreciate your thoughts. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about C-Mart. Although, I bet you a case of your favorite beer that he DEFINITELY gets in the HOF. :no:

 
Well Thorpe definitely belongs on any list of the greatest ATHLETES of all time and should probably be in the top 5 of such a list. As far as football goes, however, I THINK (i.e. correct me if I'm wrong) that his football career wasn't until later in life and he wasn't necessarily so dominant.

Although, 50 games probably amounts to 5 or 6 seasons and no doubt he was great during that time. I would leave him off an all-time list though.

 
Well Thorpe definitely belongs on any list of the greatest ATHLETES of all time and should probably be in the top 5 of such a list. As far as football goes, however, I THINK (i.e. correct me if I'm wrong) that his football career wasn't until later in life and he wasn't necessarily so dominant.

Although, 50 games probably amounts to 5 or 6 seasons and no doubt he was great during that time. I would leave him off an all-time list though.
Thorpe played 52 games of NFL football, which included parts of 8 different seasons. He played 4 seasons of pre-NFL football (probably another 30-35 games, or so) winning 3 unofficial world championships with the Canton Bulldogs.He pretty much did everything there is to do on a football field (run, pass, catch[?], kick, block, tackle), and by all accounts he did it all extremely well. Because of the vast era differences it's hard to confine him and his accomplishments to one position, but he's in the Hall as a halfback (pre-modern era).

More on Thorpe.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well Thorpe definitely belongs on any list of the greatest ATHLETES of all time and should probably be in the top 5 of such a list. As far as football goes, however, I THINK (i.e. correct me if I'm wrong) that his football career wasn't until later in life and he wasn't necessarily so dominant.

Although, 50 games probably amounts to 5 or 6 seasons and no doubt he was great during that time. I would leave him off an all-time list though.
Thorpe played 52 games of NFL football, which included parts of 8 different seasons. He played 4 seasons of pre-NFL football (probably another 30-35 games, or so) winning 3 unofficial world championships with the Canton Bulldogs.He pretty much did everything there is to do on a football field (run, pass, catch[?], kick, block, tackle), and by all accounts he did it all extremely well. Because of the vast era differences it's hard to confine him and his accomplishments to one position, but he's in the Hall as a halfback (pre-modern era).

More on Thorpe.
What an incredible athlete. As hard as it is to compare eras, it's even harder when that era is the infancy of the league (guys like Thorpe or Baugh or Hutson).
 
You make some valid points, and I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of what you're saying. It's extremely hard to compare era's.

Example = Who was greater....Curtis Martin, or Jim Thorpe? (apples & oranges here?)

Do we penalize Martin for playing in a day of "modern medicine"? Do we reward Thorpe for not? Personally, I've always thought that Thorpe was regarded as GREAT because of what he did in his athletic career as a whole (college sports, baseball, football, and track). Thorpe played in about 50 games of pro football, and had 10 TD's I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Martin played 3x's as many games, is 4th all-time in rushing, and he has 100 TD's.

"It really strikes me as odd that 9 out of the top 10 RB's of all time spent a big chunk of their careers in the 80's and 90's."

Well, I'm 33....and I didn't start watching football till the late 70's/early 80's. :clap: You are probably much older, and have more of a connection to those old-timers. I DID give many of the guys you mentioned an honorable mention. My dad still says that Unitas was the best ever, but I've only seen him play in old hi-lights.

"The magnitude of great, historic plays are way amplified in the playoffs and SB, so I put alot of weight on playoff sucess."

Excellent point, however....I personally only hold QB's accountable for playoff, and Super Bowl success. QB's have their hands on the ball every play.....a RB may get 20 touches, a WR may get only 5-10.

Anyway.....it's an interesting discussion, and I appreciate your thoughts. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about C-Mart. Although, I bet you a case of your favorite beer that he DEFINITELY gets in the HOF. :confused:
Actually, I'm younger than you - 32. I don't have a connection with the older players, I just don't think it's really fair to consider that many of the best from all time played in short time span - the distrbution across decades should be more uniform, that's all.Although - I suppose that to be fair, the NFL has shown a similar distribution. On the 75th anniversary team (done in 1994), 11 out of 49 players played in 1985 or later, or 22% of the NFL's best all time players played in 10 out of 75 years (11% of the time scale). So - the 80's had about 2x as many of the "all time best" players as a uniform distribution would suggest.

On Martin - he definately had the stats, and a nice long histroy of putting up the stats. My problem with him is I can't remember any plays he made that made me sit up and say, "wow". I can't think of anything amazing he has done. His stats are nice and all, but where's his shining moment of greatness? The time he won the league rushing title by one yard maybe? When people talk about RB's they talk about the way they played - the way Earl Campbell would knock people over, the elusiveness of Berry Sanders, the power/elusiveness combo with Peyton, Emmitt Smith's 3 TD's with a dislocated shoulder, etc. What was Martin's defining moment?

 
Well Thorpe definitely belongs on any list of the greatest ATHLETES of all time and should probably be in the top 5 of such a list. As far as football goes, however, I THINK (i.e. correct me if I'm wrong) that his football career wasn't until later in life and he wasn't necessarily so dominant.

Although, 50 games probably amounts to 5 or 6 seasons and no doubt he was great during that time. I would leave him off an all-time list though.
Thorpe played 52 games of NFL football, which included parts of 8 different seasons. He played 4 seasons of pre-NFL football (probably another 30-35 games, or so) winning 3 unofficial world championships with the Canton Bulldogs.He pretty much did everything there is to do on a football field (run, pass, catch[?], kick, block, tackle), and by all accounts he did it all extremely well. Because of the vast era differences it's hard to confine him and his accomplishments to one position, but he's in the Hall as a halfback (pre-modern era).

More on Thorpe.
What an incredible athlete. As hard as it is to compare eras, it's even harder when that era is the infancy of the league (guys like Thorpe or Baugh or Hutson).
:confused: I have to agree with this. On an all-time "athlete" list, I'd probably have Thorpe up there. However, I don't think he's one of the top 10 RB's to ever play the game. I'm basing this mostly on the length of his career. Thanks for looking up the info.

 
if not already mentioned, Ill do it, but leaving Adam Vinatieri off a top 10 list of all-timers at his position is almost like leaving hotdog and hamburger off a top 10 of all-time most popular american foods. the guy has 4 rings, and had alot to do with each one of them. otherwise, nice lists....always tough to rank all-timers. good job.
:loco: I dont want to get in a big discussion about kickers because when it comes right down to it, who cares?The above is laughable.

The Pats never would have won their first SB without Vinatieri. The Snow Bowl kick was the greatest kick in league history. The SB winning kick in a dome doesnt impress me that much but did bring a tear to my eye.

Vinatieri missed 2 chip shots earlier in the SB win over Carolina before kicking the game winner which was a 40 yarder in a dome. I wouldnt say that Vinatieri was a major contributor to that victory. Not even top 10 on the team in that game.

Vinatieri made 1 22 yard FG in the Pats win over the Eagles. Again, not top 10 in contributors for that SB victory.

Vinatieri made 3 of 4 FG's in the Colts victory with a long of 29 yards.

To say that Vinatieri has played a MAJOR role in 4 SB victories is just severely overstating the case.
:thumbup:
 
What was Martin's defining moment?
How about 17,430 yards from scrimmage, and 100 touchdowns? To me that's pretty defining.
That all happened in one moment? :towelwave:
Are you KIDDING me? Don't tell me you missed the play where Martin ran for 17,430 yards and scored 100 TDs! That play is LEGENDARY!Jokes aside, I think this whole idea that HoFers have to be elected based on a distinctive "moment" or a remarkable playstyle is crazy and counterproductive. I mean, imagine a QB who played 12 seasons and averaged 4,000 yards passing (at a very good per-attempt rate) and 10 wins per season, won one superbowl, made 6 pro bowls and 3 all-pro teams, but didn't win a single MVP award or set a single NFL record. Let's say his release was pretty normal, none of his teams were considered all-time greats, none of his plays were ever described with capital letters (like The Spike or The Drive), and the most famous moment he was ever connected with came in a losing effort. Basically, imagine a slightly lesser version of Peyton Manning, or a slightly better/longer-lived version of Trent Green. Should this hypothetical QB be denied HoF access entirely as a result of a surfeit of "memorable moments"? How ridiculous is that? Why not rename it from the Hall of Fame to the Hall of Great Plays and Distinctive Styles? Should Michael Vick get elected into the HoF since he has a signature moment (first QB to win in GB in the postseason) and a signature playstyle?

 
What was Martin's defining moment?
How about 17,430 yards from scrimmage, and 100 touchdowns? To me that's pretty defining.
That all happened in one moment? :confused:
Are you KIDDING me? Don't tell me you missed the play where Martin ran for 17,430 yards and scored 100 TDs! That play is LEGENDARY!Jokes aside, I think this whole idea that HoFers have to be elected based on a distinctive "moment" or a remarkable playstyle is crazy and counterproductive. I mean, imagine a QB who played 12 seasons and averaged 4,000 yards passing (at a very good per-attempt rate) and 10 wins per season, won one superbowl, made 6 pro bowls and 3 all-pro teams, but didn't win a single MVP award or set a single NFL record. Let's say his release was pretty normal, none of his teams were considered all-time greats, none of his plays were ever described with capital letters (like The Spike or The Drive), and the most famous moment he was ever connected with came in a losing effort. Basically, imagine a slightly lesser version of Peyton Manning, or a slightly better/longer-lived version of Trent Green. Should this hypothetical QB be denied HoF access entirely as a result of a surfeit of "memorable moments"? How ridiculous is that? Why not rename it from the Hall of Fame to the Hall of Great Plays and Distinctive Styles? Should Michael Vick get elected into the HoF since he has a signature moment (first QB to win in GB in the postseason) and a signature playstyle?
I'd have to think that somewhere along the lines of averaging 4k passing yards, 10 wins per season, and a SB, there's be some spectacular comeback, some heroic play, some guts...something to define a career. Give me a reason to think someone is great, without tossing stats at me. Give me a reason to separate a player from the pack of "very good" players - tell me in 25 words or less what makes player "X" special.Martin may have that moment - I have never really watched him that closely, but I can't think of anything that he has done that I would consider particularly outstanding. I'm probably wrong, I'm hoping someone can enlighten me.

 
I'd have to think that somewhere along the lines of averaging 4k passing yards, 10 wins per season, and a SB, there's be some spectacular comeback, some heroic play, some guts...something to define a career. Give me a reason to think someone is great, without tossing stats at me. Give me a reason to separate a player from the pack of "very good" players - tell me in 25 words or less what makes player "X" special.Martin may have that moment - I have never really watched him that closely, but I can't think of anything that he has done that I would consider particularly outstanding. I'm probably wrong, I'm hoping someone can enlighten me.
25 words or less? Okay, I can do that: 120 wins, 48,000 yards, and a SB ring in 12 years makes a player pretty darn special, in my book. End of story.Let's say that the player is on the road and down by 22 points, and he scores 3 TDs in quick succession in the 4th and is going for the 2 point conversion to tie it. Do you honestly mean to suggest that if he finishes the comeback (and therefore has a "signature moment") he's a HoFer, but if he fails one two-point conversion (and therefore doesn't have ANY "signature moment"), he's not? That is, in my opinion, pretty dumb. That QB passes every single requirement that anyone ever looks for in a HoFer- he had very good numbers, he had good per-play numbers (so he wasn't an Eddie George or Drew Bledsoe-like compiler), he compared well to his peers for a long period of time (6 pro bowls), he was one of the very, very best at his position for a while (3 All-Pros), he won at a 62.5% clip, he had at least a modicum of playoff success and at least one ring- the only thing he doesn't have is a signature moment. In my mind, to suggest that he's anything BUT a HoFer is just silly. If people became HoFers on the strength of a signature moment, why not enshrine Chris Chambers, Brandon "The Matrix" Lloyd, or Freddie "I'd Like To Thank My Hands" Mitchell?
 
SSOG, your argument is a straw man; you've invented a mythical player and then invented an objection to his induction. No one is arguing against your mythical player being inducted.

The closest analogs to your suggested player are Warren Moon (who is in) and Drew Bledsoe (who shouldn't and probably won't be). The reasons why Moon is in and Bledsoe isn't may be instructive as to how people decide on HoF candidates, but a stat line with no context is not.

 
SSOG> is it the Hall of Fame, or Hall of great stats?
I always hate this line. Regardless of what its name is, it's the "Hall of The Best Players In NFL History". Which is more indicative of which players are the best in NFL history- great stats, or a couple of big moments (aka "fame")? I mean, for most of this decade there hasn't been a single player in the league more famous than Michael Vick- according to the asinine assertion that it's the "Hall of FAME", Michael Vick should be a first balloter. Reggie Bush should also be a first ballot HoFer, too- I mean, is it the "Hall of Great Players", or is it the "Hall of Fame"? Let's also induct Ryan Leaf, since he's the most mentioned player of the past 20 years, and this is the Hall of FAME we're talking about, right?
 
SSOG, your argument is a straw man; you've invented a mythical player and then invented an objection to his induction. No one is arguing against your mythical player being inducted.
I wasn't trying to create a strawman. Someone said that they couldn't elect someone without a signature moment, and I was trying to illustrate how silly that stance is by creating a hypothetical player that should be a first-ballot HoFer, but leaving him bereft of "signature moments".Also, someone WAS arguing against his induction. From what I can tell, Moleculo has said several times that he doesn't think a player belongs without some sort of defining moment, saying he defines greatness "as having memoriable/historic plays" and presumably arguing that only great players should be in the HoF (which means a player shouldn't get in without a signature moment).
 
SSOG, your argument is a straw man; you've invented a mythical player and then invented an objection to his induction. No one is arguing against your mythical player being inducted.
I wasn't trying to create a strawman. Someone said that they couldn't elect someone without a signature moment, and I was trying to illustrate how silly that stance is by creating a hypothetical player that should be a first-ballot HoFer, but leaving him bereft of "signature moments".Also, someone WAS arguing against his induction. From what I can tell, Moleculo has said several times that he doesn't think a player belongs without some sort of defining moment, saying he defines greatness "as having memoriable/historic plays" and presumably arguing that only great players should be in the HoF (which means a player shouldn't get in without a signature moment).
Once again: you can't look at stats in a vacuum. Think about why Drew Bledsoe is unlikely to make the Hall, and you'll have some sense of what people are talking about when they talk about signature moments.
 
SSOG> is it the Hall of Fame, or Hall of great stats?
I always hate this line. Regardless of what its name is, it's the "Hall of The Best Players In NFL History". Which is more indicative of which players are the best in NFL history- great stats, or a couple of big moments (aka "fame")? I mean, for most of this decade there hasn't been a single player in the league more famous than Michael Vick- according to the asinine assertion that it's the "Hall of FAME", Michael Vick should be a first balloter. Reggie Bush should also be a first ballot HoFer, too- I mean, is it the "Hall of Great Players", or is it the "Hall of Fame"? Let's also induct Ryan Leaf, since he's the most mentioned player of the past 20 years, and this is the Hall of FAME we're talking about, right?
that's not what I'm saying. I'll give you that it's not a popularity contest if you will grant that there has to be more than numbers to say someone is amongst the best ever. Someone on this message board said that "a player is HOF worthy if you can't tell the history of the game without mentioning this player", and I think I like this criteria.Besides - ignoring his off the field activities, why shouldn't Vick be considered HOF worthy, if his career continues along the track it's on now? it could be that in 10 years, we consider Vick revolutionized the way QB is played. Vick has had as big an influence on the game as pretty much anyone playing today.

however- this has to do with Curtis Martin, not Vick. Great guy, sure. nice stats, but where is his place in history? One of the best ever, or someone better than mediocre a majority of his career? In 20 years, how will Martin be remembered?

 
Gale Sayers is, without question imo, one of the top 5 RBs to have ever played the game.

That is not to say he had one of the best 5 careers, but he was there long enough (especially in an era when knees were not so easily reconstructed) to have demonstrated a gift that no one had possessed before, and no one has, since.

 
however- this has to do with Curtis Martin, not Vick. Great guy, sure. nice stats, but where is his place in history? One of the best ever, or someone better than mediocre a majority of his career? In 20 years, how will Martin be remembered?
Martin is one of the best workhorse backs ever to play the game. He finished in the top 3 in rushing yards four times in his career, including leading the league in rushing at age 31 (shattering all records for RBs of that age). His games-played streak is simply incredible for someone at his position, and he is likely to still be in the top 5 in career rushing yardage by the time he comes up for HoF induction. In his rookie season, he accounted for half of his team's TD production in one of the top 10 rookie seasons in league history. In his second season, he led his team to the Super Bowl, including totaling 166 yards and 3 TDs in the franchise's first playoff win in over 10 years. Unfortunately he was limited to 11 carries in the Super Bowl, partly because Drew Bledsoe threw 4 INTs. (Speaking of signature moments).

After leaving New England, Martin in his first year with the Jets also led them to their first playoff win in over 10 years, this time with 124 yards and 2 TDs. (They then lost after the ostensibly brilliant Parcells had Vinnie Testaverde throw it 52 times in a close game, instead of feeding his workhorse back).

Martin is a lead-pipe, first-ballot lock for the HoF, and completely deservingly so.

 
that's not what I'm saying. I'll give you that it's not a popularity contest if you will grant that there has to be more than numbers to say someone is amongst the best ever. Someone on this message board said that "a player is HOF worthy if you can't tell the history of the game without mentioning this player", and I think I like this criteria.Besides - ignoring his off the field activities, why shouldn't Vick be considered HOF worthy, if his career continues along the track it's on now? it could be that in 10 years, we consider Vick revolutionized the way QB is played. Vick has had as big an influence on the game as pretty much anyone playing today.however- this has to do with Curtis Martin, not Vick. Great guy, sure. nice stats, but where is his place in history? One of the best ever, or someone better than mediocre a majority of his career? In 20 years, how will Martin be remembered?
You can't tell the history of the game without mentioning Ryan Leaf. Does that make him a Hall of Famer? You could probably tell the history of the game WITHOUT mentioning Warren Moon. Does that mean he's not a Hall of Famer? I just think your definition is getting needlessly narrow here- a player is a HoFer if he's one of the best players to ever play the game. Pretty simple, no? And before you mention Namath or Swann... Swann was a 3-time all-pro and was on the 1970s All Decade team. He was probably more talented than Stallworth, he just had injury issues. And including Namath in the HoF was a joke.As for why Vick shouldn't be a Hall of Famer... how about because he's not very good? Solid enough reason? I mean, nobody is arguing that Doug Plank is a HoFer, and he revolutionized the game far more than Vick did (I'd argue that Cunningham and Steve Young revolutionized the way the league regarded running QBs long before Vick ever arrived).As for Martin... it's hard to say. If I took control of the HoF tomorrow, I'd probably exclude Martin- not because I don't think he's not worthy, but because I'd be spending a long time filling the Hall with other players who were more worthy but got ignored because of the position they played. Still, do I think that Curtis Martin meets the standard which has currently been set forth for RBs to be "Hall of Fame worthy"? Yeah, I think he meets that standard, albeit just barely. Only one All Pro weighs heavily against him, but on the other hand, he finished in the top 10 of the major statistical categories (carries, rushing yards, rushing TDs, yards from scrimmage, total TDs) an solid 33 times (including 17 top-5 finishes). That compares very favorably with other HoFers like Eric Dickerson (32 top 10, 25 top 5), Earl Campbell (24/19), O.J. Simpson (23/21), John Riggins (20/10), and Thurman Thomas (26/19), and it places him well ahead of his undeserving (in my opinion) competition, Jerome Bettis (21/10). While it's not perfect, I like using top finishes as a very good starting point in every arguement, because it rewards dominance *AND* longevity without rewarding anyone who just hangs around for forever and accumulates stats. Looking at it in that way, Martin is just barely HoF-caliber, but I wouldn't get around to selecting him until I'd righted a bunch of other wrongs, first.
 
Martin is a lead-pipe, first-ballot lock for the HoF, and completely deservingly so.
Wow, that's some serious hyperbole. You might think that Martin is a HoFer. You might even think that he's a SOLID HoFer. You cannot, on the other hand, say that he is so blatantly a HoFer that it's impossible to envision the selection committee hemming and hawing for a year or two. There is absolutely NO WAY Martin could be considered a "lead-pipe, first-ballot lock", even if you think he should be.
 
however- this has to do with Curtis Martin, not Vick. Great guy, sure. nice stats, but where is his place in history? One of the best ever, or someone better than mediocre a majority of his career? In 20 years, how will Martin be remembered?
Martin is one of the best workhorse backs ever to play the game. He finished in the top 3 in rushing yards four times in his career, including leading the league in rushing at age 31 (shattering all records for RBs of that age). His games-played streak is simply incredible for someone at his position, and he is likely to still be in the top 5 in career rushing yardage by the time he comes up for HoF induction. In his rookie season, he accounted for half of his team's TD production in one of the top 10 rookie seasons in league history. In his second season, he led his team to the Super Bowl, including totaling 166 yards and 3 TDs in the franchise's first playoff win in over 10 years. Unfortunately he was limited to 11 carries in the Super Bowl, partly because Drew Bledsoe threw 4 INTs. (Speaking of signature moments).

After leaving New England, Martin in his first year with the Jets also led them to their first playoff win in over 10 years, this time with 124 yards and 2 TDs. (They then lost after the ostensibly brilliant Parcells had Vinnie Testaverde throw it 52 times in a close game, instead of feeding his workhorse back).

Martin is a lead-pipe, first-ballot lock for the HoF, and completely deservingly so.
thanks. I didn't follow Martin's career that closely, being more of a west coast guy myself. The bolded part above is exactly what I was looking for as far as historical impact.
 
Martin is a lead-pipe, first-ballot lock for the HoF, and completely deservingly so.
Wow, that's some serious hyperbole. You might think that Martin is a HoFer. You might even think that he's a SOLID HoFer. You cannot, on the other hand, say that he is so blatantly a HoFer that it's impossible to envision the selection committee hemming and hawing for a year or two. There is absolutely NO WAY Martin could be considered a "lead-pipe, first-ballot lock", even if you think he should be.
He might have been borderline before his 2004 season, but I don't think there's any way he gets overlooked, even for a year or two, after that season. At an age when most RBs have already hung up the spikes, or been relegated to third-down or backup duty, Martin had the best season of his career and the best ever by a RB of his age (only competition is Payton in 1985). When someone has one of the top-10 rookie seasons of all time, and one of the top-2 seasons by a RB over 30 of all time, and in between those holds the record for consecutive games played by a RB, during which period he was consistently one of the best producers in the league, and is in the top 5 in rushing yardage, he belongs in the Hall.
 
Martin is a lead-pipe, first-ballot lock for the HoF, and completely deservingly so.
Wow, that's some serious hyperbole. You might think that Martin is a HoFer. You might even think that he's a SOLID HoFer. You cannot, on the other hand, say that he is so blatantly a HoFer that it's impossible to envision the selection committee hemming and hawing for a year or two. There is absolutely NO WAY Martin could be considered a "lead-pipe, first-ballot lock", even if you think he should be.
He might have been borderline before his 2004 season, but I don't think there's any way he gets overlooked, even for a year or two, after that season. At an age when most RBs have already hung up the spikes, or been relegated to third-down or backup duty, Martin had the best season of his career and the best ever by a RB of his age (only competition is Payton in 1985). When someone has one of the top-10 rookie seasons of all time, and one of the top-2 seasons by a RB over 30 of all time, and in between those holds the record for consecutive games played by a RB, during which period he was consistently one of the best producers in the league, and is in the top 5 in rushing yardage, he belongs in the Hall.
Yes, he belongs in the Hall of Fame. On the other hand, it's a little bit hard to call a guy who made ONE All-Pro team a "lead-pipe first-ballot lock". Especially because he has no rings, and you know there's always some people who (extremely unfairly, in my mind) weigh rings more heavily than anything else. I mean, Thurman Thomas lead the league in yards from scrimmage for FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS (a feat that has never been matched and probably never will), and he also made the superbowl four times, and he still didn't get in on the first ballot. So how is Curtis Martin (who has never lead the league in ANYTHING outside of the time he won the rushing title by one freaking yard) so much stronger of a candidate that he's a "lead-pipe lock" to get in on the first ballot where Thurman Thomas failed?Again, I think Martin will get in. I think he BELONGS in. At the same time, saying he's a "lead-pipe first-ballot lock" is disingenuous. Emmitt Smith is a lead-pipe first-ballot lock. Curtis Martin is a likely future Hall of Famer.Edit: Let's put it this way. I could compose an arguement to keep him out of the Hall of Fame. I could VERY EASILY compose an arguement to keep him out of the Hall of Fame. His career ypc is a PATHETIC 4.0 and only twice did he break 4.2, which means he was more of an accumulator than a stud. He only made one All-Pro team, and was only once considered among the top 3 RBs in the entire NFL. In the AFCCG and Superbowl, he averaged 14 carries for 38 yards (2.7 yards per carry). The team that originally drafted him let him leave when he was still clearly and unequivocably in his prime.Now, I don't think that's enough to keep him out of the hall, but the fact that such an amazingly compelling arguement exists against him suggests that it's a little bit silly to consider him a lead-pipe lock to make it in on the first ballot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, he belongs in the Hall of Fame. On the other hand, it's a little bit hard to call a guy who made ONE All-Pro team a "lead-pipe first-ballot lock". Especially because he has no rings, and you know there's always some people who (extremely unfairly, in my mind) weigh rings more heavily than anything else. I mean, Thurman Thomas lead the league in yards from scrimmage for FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS (a feat that has never been matched and probably never will), and he also made the superbowl four times, and he still didn't get in on the first ballot. So how is Curtis Martin (who has never lead the league in ANYTHING outside of the time he won the rushing title by one freaking yard) so much stronger of a candidate that he's a "lead-pipe lock" to get in on the first ballot where Thurman Thomas failed?
Call it unfair if you like, but rushing yards are worth more than yards from scrimmage in terms of Hall consideration. By the time Thomas was up for Hall induction, he was not in the top 10 in rushing yardage (and only ever got as high as #9), and it also wasn't like his receiving totals were that remarkable for a RB; Thomas' best receiving season was #43 on the all-time list for RBs at the time he retired, and even in combined yards his best season was only #19 on the all-time list when he retired (and that had fallen to #29 by the time he was eligible for Hall consideration).Believe what you like, but barring a terrorist attack on Canton, Ohio, I think Martin's in the Hall in his first year of eligibility.
 
Many disagree with me, but to me a short, brilliant career with many playoff appearances is much more note-worthy than a long career of better than mediocre.
Moleculo, do you really think Curtis Martin was just "better than mediocre"? :o

As a Detroiter, I was spoiled watching the career of Barry Sanders. I can remember sitting in the Silver Dome, just waiting for his next magical moment. He was electric, everytime he touched the ball there was a chance he was gonna take it to the house.

Curtis Martin was a different kind of special. He was a workhorse, 4 yards and a cloud of dust. He'd get the tough yards, block, or catch passes....basically anything the team asked him to do (he even has 2 pass completions for 36 yards, and 2 touchdowns! :) ). I believe there are only two RB's in the history of the NFL that have 10 straight 1000 yard rushing season (Emmitt?), C-Mart is the other. He only had 16 fumbles in his 12 year career.

The thing I admired about him though, was his toughness. At 5'10", 205 lb....he wasn't exactly the prototype for a workhorse. C-Martin played through various injuries during his career, Parcells once said that Martin had an unusually high tolerance for pain. Martin played through severe sprains, hairline fractures, and the last few years of his career...he was playing on a bone on bone knee condition (no cartilage).

It's very unfair for someone to say Martin's numbers are inflated because he had a long career. He earned every one of those yards. Like Barry Sanders, Martin didn't play on a lot of great teams, thus he never had much glory in the postseason. You can't put that on C-Mart though. The guy didn't take days off, period.

Martin wasn't flashy, and he definitely wasn't a self-promoter. Maybe this is why he's underrated by some. However, as someone who's watched football for 25 years+, I can honestly say that I think he's one of the best I ever seen.

If you tell me that you don't think Curtis Martin belongs in the top 10 for all-time RB's, I'm not gonna fight you on it (I'll give you there are others like the previously mentioned Sayers that also deserve strong consideration). However, the notion that Curtis Martin is not HOF material is outright lunacy.

 
Many disagree with me, but to me a short, brilliant career with many playoff appearances is much more note-worthy than a long career of better than mediocre.
Moleculo, do you really think Curtis Martin was just "better than mediocre"? :D
better than mediocre? certainly. How much better - that is the question. A mediocre RB would have a career full of finishes between RB10 and RB 20, in terms of rushing yards. A better than mediocre RB would have more finishes in top 10 than 10-20. An elite RB would have a career full of top 3 seasons - see Emmitt Smith, Walter Peyton, Jim Brown, Barry Sanders, etc.Martin certainly garners plenty of consideration for the HOF, but as SSOG pointed out, an arguement can be made against him. in 11 seasons, Martin was top 3 four times. That's pretty good, but short of what the guys I listed did.

The arguement that the above statement was leading to, btw, is comparing Terell Davis to Curtis Martin. Obviously, as a Bronco fan, I'm very biased here. Martin and TD were rooks at the same time, and were both very prominant players early in their careers. TD is the text book example of a "short, brilliant career with many playoff appearances", where Martin has a long career of "(much?) better than mediocre".

For the record, here's how I put my list:

1 Jim Brown

2 Barry Sanders

3 Walter Payton

4 Eric Dickerson

5 O.J. Simpson

6 Gale Sayers

7 Emmitt Smith

8 Ladainian Tomlinson

9 Earl Campbell

that's about as far as I want to rank. #10 could be filled by any of the following:

Terrell Davis - mostly on post-season production

Marshall Faulk - ultimate recieving threat

Tony Dorsett - holds record for longest offensive play from schrimmage

Curtis Martin - for reasons detailed above

Marcus Allen - SB MVP, TD production

John Riggins - SB MVP, workhorse

Franco Harris - SB MVP, immaculate reception

 
An elite RB would have a career full of top 3 seasons For the record, here's how I put my list:1 Jim Brown 2 Barry Sanders3 Walter Payton 4 Eric Dickerson 5 O.J. Simpson6 Gale Sayers7 Emmitt Smith 8 Ladainian Tomlinson 9 Earl Campbellthat's about as far as I want to rank. #10 could be filled by any of the following:Terrell Davis - mostly on post-season productionMarshall Faulk - ultimate recieving threatTony Dorsett - holds record for longest offensive play from schrimmageCurtis Martin - for reasons detailed aboveMarcus Allen - SB MVP, TD productionJohn Riggins - SB MVP, workhorseFranco Harris - SB MVP, immaculate reception
I got bored, so I looked up Top 3 finishes for these guys in the category that is most meaningful for RBs - rushing yards.J. Brown - 5Sanders - 7Payton - 7Dickerson - 6Simpson - 5Sayers - 4E. Smith - 5Tomlinson - 3Campbell - 3T. Davis - 3M. Faulk - 0Dorsett - 3C. Martin - 4M. Allen - 1Riggins - 0F. Harris - 1I don't have any kind of a point to make. I just wanted to share. But it does seem that if this is the main criteria, then inserting Curtis Martin into the top ten of this list isn't irrational.
 
Tony Dorsett - holds record for longest offensive play from schrimmage
Considering he shares this record with about ten other guys (and only Cliff Branch is at all noteworthy amongst them), this might not be the most impressive argument to make on his behalf.
 
If Terrell Davis had played 10 years, I have no doubts that he'd be in my top 5! I loved T.D., he was terrific. However, I just don't think he played long enough. Sadly, he was injured...(I'll always blame Brian Griese for that). Actually, I discovered Davis in my main keeper league, and he helped me win 2 FF championships. I'll also always appreciate T.D. because he helped my all-time favorite player (Elway) get his championship.

How do you rank the QB's and WR's?

 
better than mediocre? certainly. How much better - that is the question. A mediocre RB would have a career full of finishes between RB10 and RB 20, in terms of rushing yards. A better than mediocre RB would have more finishes in top 10 than 10-20. An elite RB would have a career full of top 3 seasons - see Emmitt Smith, Walter Peyton, Jim Brown, Barry Sanders, etc.Martin certainly garners plenty of consideration for the HOF, but as SSOG pointed out, an arguement can be made against him. in 11 seasons, Martin was top 3 four times. That's pretty good, but short of what the guys I listed did.
That's a big "etc." you've got up there, once you've listed probably the three overall most talented RBs in league history, plus the #1 yardage gainer.Here are some HOF resumes:Martin: Rushing yards, top 10 7 times, top 5 four times. Yards from scrimmage, top 10 8 times, top 5 four times. (7/4, 8/4)Marcus Allen: 4/2, 5/3Earl Campbell: 4/3, 4/3Tony Dorsett: 8/3, 9/2Franco Harris: 8/2, 4/1In other words, Martin compares quite favorably in these metrics to most of the modern-era RBs in the Hall; I think he has at least a strong a case as any of the four above, all of whom were first-ballot selections.
 
Reservoir Dog,

I applaud your enthusiasm, but Otto Graham is the best QB of all time. Even if you want to plug for one or two above him, leaving him out of the Top 10 is ridiculous and a crime.

Please review the facts and re-consider ...

He accumulated the following record with the Cleveland Browns :

105-17-4

He led the Browns to 10 straight title games [1946-1954] and they came away with championships in 7 out of 10! This includes 5 in a row!

No other QB even comes close!

 
Reservoir Dog,I applaud your enthusiasm, but Otto Graham is the best QB of all time. Even if you want to plug for one or two above him, leaving him out of the Top 10 is ridiculous and a crime.Please review the facts and re-consider ...He accumulated the following record with the Cleveland Browns :105-17-4He led the Browns to 10 straight title games [1946-1954] and they came away with championships in 7 out of 10! This includes 5 in a row!No other QB even comes close!
I put him at #12, pretty high for a player I've only watched in some grainy footage on ESPN classics. That W/L record is very impressive though! Where do you rate his nemesis, Bobby Layne?
 
CalBear said:
moleculo said:
better than mediocre? certainly. How much better - that is the question. A mediocre RB would have a career full of finishes between RB10 and RB 20, in terms of rushing yards. A better than mediocre RB would have more finishes in top 10 than 10-20. An elite RB would have a career full of top 3 seasons - see Emmitt Smith, Walter Peyton, Jim Brown, Barry Sanders, etc.Martin certainly garners plenty of consideration for the HOF, but as SSOG pointed out, an arguement can be made against him. in 11 seasons, Martin was top 3 four times. That's pretty good, but short of what the guys I listed did.
That's a big "etc." you've got up there, once you've listed probably the three overall most talented RBs in league history, plus the #1 yardage gainer.Here are some HOF resumes:Martin: Rushing yards, top 10 7 times, top 5 four times. Yards from scrimmage, top 10 8 times, top 5 four times. (7/4, 8/4)Marcus Allen: 4/2, 5/3Earl Campbell: 4/3, 4/3Tony Dorsett: 8/3, 9/2Franco Harris: 8/2, 4/1In other words, Martin compares quite favorably in these metrics to most of the modern-era RBs in the Hall; I think he has at least a strong a case as any of the four above, all of whom were first-ballot selections.
agreed. The guys I listed are clearly the elite. The tier below the elite - I'd prefer those rankings go to the short but brilliant careers. I was pretty underwhelmed reviewing the career stats for those guys. IMO, Marcus Allen is considered great for his historic SB run, as well as his nose for the end zone. It's a shame he had to split time with Bo Jackson. Campbell - what an amazing start to a career, leading the league in rushing his first three years. Franco Harris will go down in history as the RB of one of the best all around teams in history, plus the immaculate Reception will live on forever.The thing I wanted to point out is that Earl Campbell - when he played in 14 or more games, he failed to crack top 5 only once in his career. Same with Terrell Davis. Gale Sayers never finished worse than 5th when he played more than two games.I will recognize that there is something to be said for durability, and that's why I put Martin in the same cluster as Dorsett, Harris, Allen, etc.
 
Despyzer said:
moleculo said:
An elite RB would have a career full of top 3 seasons For the record, here's how I put my list:1 Jim Brown 2 Barry Sanders3 Walter Payton 4 Eric Dickerson 5 O.J. Simpson6 Gale Sayers7 Emmitt Smith 8 Ladainian Tomlinson 9 Earl Campbellthat's about as far as I want to rank. #10 could be filled by any of the following:Terrell Davis - mostly on post-season productionMarshall Faulk - ultimate recieving threatTony Dorsett - holds record for longest offensive play from schrimmageCurtis Martin - for reasons detailed aboveMarcus Allen - SB MVP, TD productionJohn Riggins - SB MVP, workhorseFranco Harris - SB MVP, immaculate reception
I got bored, so I looked up Top 3 finishes for these guys in the category that is most meaningful for RBs - rushing yards.J. Brown - 5Sanders - 7Payton - 7Dickerson - 6Simpson - 5Sayers - 4E. Smith - 5Tomlinson - 3Campbell - 3T. Davis - 3M. Faulk - 0Dorsett - 3C. Martin - 4M. Allen - 1Riggins - 0F. Harris - 1I don't have any kind of a point to make. I just wanted to share. But it does seem that if this is the main criteria, then inserting Curtis Martin into the top ten of this list isn't irrational.
it's not irrrational at all. I think it boils down to personal preference at some level. I prefer to award the short brilliant careers - I think earl campbell leading the league in rushing his first three years, followed by a 5th place finish is more impressive - a short, brilliant career. I put Sayers in this category as well. I put Tomlinson ahead as well, because I have a feeling Tomlinson isn't done yet. Even if, heaven forbid, he decided to retire all of a sudden, he would have three top 3 finishes in 6 years., plus the single season TD record That's pretty impressive too.
 
Dancing Bear said:
Reservoir Dog,I applaud your enthusiasm, but Otto Graham is the best QB of all time. Even if you want to plug for one or two above him, leaving him out of the Top 10 is ridiculous and a crime.Please review the facts and re-consider ...He accumulated the following record with the Cleveland Browns :105-17-4He led the Browns to 10 straight title games [1946-1954] and they came away with championships in 7 out of 10! This includes 5 in a row!No other QB even comes close!
First off, the 10 straight title games is silly. The first 4 came against the AAFC. People say that the Cleveland Browns proved that the old AAFC was legit, but they didn't- all they proved was that the Cleveland Browns were legit, the rest of the AAFC sucked and the Browns record against them reflected that. You want to talk about making 6 straight championship games in the NFL (and going 3-3 in them), then I'm all ears, but that 10-straight championships is meaningless. It'd be like if the Denver Broncos joined the Arena Football League, won 4 straight championships, then came back to the NFL and won another championship. Would you say that Denver then went to 5 straight championship games?Second off, Otto Graham played with advantages that no other QB has EVER possessed (or will ever possess again). His coach was a revolutionary, changing the way that everyone played football. For instance, Otto Graham was the first QB in history whose offensive linemen actually passblocked for him. Before Paul Brown came along, OLs blocked for passing plays just like running plays. Then Brown invented the concept of a "pocket", and as a result Otto Graham had better protection than any other QB in the history of the game. Similar innovation can be seen throughout the entire Cleveland Browns roster, and the talent level on those Browns was also unreal. Graham was an amazing QB, almost certainly top-10, but that won/loss and championship record wasn't about Graham, it was about Paul Brown.Now, if you still want to call Graham the best QB ever because he went to 6 straight championships and went 3-3 in them, then I'd argue that you, sir, are terribly mistaken- Bart Starr is the best QB ever because he went to 6 championships in 8 years and went 5-1 in them. During that span he also led the team to an 11-2-1 season but didn't make the playoffs because another team in his division went 11-1-2 (making the 1963 Green Bay Packers the best team to miss the playoffs in NFL history).
Franco Harris will go down in history as the RB of one of the best all around teams in history, plus the immaculate Reception will live on forever.
You keep mentioning the immaculate reception. Do you really think that Franco Harris's HoF credentials are based so strongly on the fact that he just happened to be in the right place at the right time during the flukiest play in the history of the NFL? I guarantee you they aren't, or else Don Beebe would be in the Hall of Fame. Hey, speaking of Beebe, he also holds the record for most SB appearances by any player ever (shared with Mike Lodish). Since you seem so enamored with useless minutia, you should love his chances of making the Hall!Sorry, I just really don't get your fixation on "signature moments".
 
SSOG,

The fact that Otto Graham played on a "TEAM" cannot detract from how he performed individually anymore than any other QB you want to bring up. So please do not discount his performance because of the overall success of the team he was on.

Secondly, discounting their performance in the AAFC is also ridiculous. They won the Championship the first year they came into the NFL. They made it to the Championship in each of their first 6 years in the NFL, and they won 3 out of 6 of these.

He led his team to the Championship game in 10 out of 10 years he played!

My point to the thread was that it was ridiculous to not include Graham in the Top 10 listing.

In Starr's career Green Bay only made it to the playoffs 6 of 16 years. They were 5-1 in the championship game with victories in '61, '62, '65, '66, '67 and a loss in '60.

If you want to make a case for Starr, then I'm all ears. Put them 1, 2 if you want with Starr first. I won't be upset with listing them that way.

 
John Elway is the most overrated QB ever... Everyone remembers the end of his career, which was nice, but ol' horseteeth couldn't hit the broadside of a barn... And he threw too many interceptions... Probably threw as many picks as touchdowns :lmao:

In todays age he would have been cut very early on.

Peyton Manning

Steve Young

Joe Montana

Brett Favre

Johnny Unitas

Jim Kelly

Frank Tarkenten

Carson Palmer

Daunte Culpepper (pre injury)

Warren Moon

 
I see the QB's this way:

Joe Montana

John Elway

Johnny Unitas

Tom Brady

Bart Starr

Peyton Manning

Brett Favre

Dan Marino

Steve Young

Terry Bradshaw

As you can see from my list I put a lot of stock in Winning and Leadership. Each of these guys won at least 1 title except Marino.

Running Backs

Jim Brown

Barry Sanders

Walter Payton

Gale Sayers (total preference pick. Favorite player of all time)

OJ Simpson

Eric Dickerson

Ladainian Tomlinson

Emmitt Smith

Earl Campbell

Tony Dorsett

Wide Receivers

Jerry Rice

Don Hutson

Randy Moss

Marvin Harrison

Cris Carter

Don Maynard

Steve Largent

Paul Warfield

Terrell Owens

Lance Alworth

Receiver was probably the toughest list for me. I didnt want to pick just all modern players so I had to do some research. Its tough to pick a guy that you have never seen play.

I'm also a subscriber, like Moleculo, that knows when he sees a Hall of Famer. Football is not Baseball. Hall of Fame is not simply about accumulating numbers. You must SEE greatness. Curtis Martin is to 20 but not top 10. Jerome Bettis would not be top 30 on my list.

 
Reservoir Dog,I applaud your enthusiasm, but Otto Graham is the best QB of all time. Even if you want to plug for one or two above him, leaving him out of the Top 10 is ridiculous and a crime.Please review the facts and re-consider ...He accumulated the following record with the Cleveland Browns :105-17-4He led the Browns to 10 straight title games [1946-1954] and they came away with championships in 7 out of 10! This includes 5 in a row!No other QB even comes close!
First off, the 10 straight title games is silly. The first 4 came against the AAFC. People say that the Cleveland Browns proved that the old AAFC was legit, but they didn't- all they proved was that the Cleveland Browns were legit, the rest of the AAFC sucked and the Browns record against them reflected that. You want to talk about making 6 straight championship games in the NFL (and going 3-3 in them), then I'm all ears, but that 10-straight championships is meaningless. It'd be like if the Denver Broncos joined the Arena Football League, won 4 straight championships, then came back to the NFL and won another championship. Would you say that Denver then went to 5 straight championship games?Second off, Otto Graham played with advantages that no other QB has EVER possessed (or will ever possess again). His coach was a revolutionary, changing the way that everyone played football. For instance, Otto Graham was the first QB in history whose offensive linemen actually passblocked for him. Before Paul Brown came along, OLs blocked for passing plays just like running plays. Then Brown invented the concept of a "pocket", and as a result Otto Graham had better protection than any other QB in the history of the game. Similar innovation can be seen throughout the entire Cleveland Browns roster, and the talent level on those Browns was also unreal. Graham was an amazing QB, almost certainly top-10, but that won/loss and championship record wasn't about Graham, it was about Paul Brown.Now, if you still want to call Graham the best QB ever because he went to 6 straight championships and went 3-3 in them, then I'd argue that you, sir, are terribly mistaken- Bart Starr is the best QB ever because he went to 6 championships in 8 years and went 5-1 in them. During that span he also led the team to an 11-2-1 season but didn't make the playoffs because another team in his division went 11-1-2 (making the 1963 Green Bay Packers the best team to miss the playoffs in NFL history).
Franco Harris will go down in history as the RB of one of the best all around teams in history, plus the immaculate Reception will live on forever.
You keep mentioning the immaculate reception. Do you really think that Franco Harris's HoF credentials are based so strongly on the fact that he just happened to be in the right place at the right time during the flukiest play in the history of the NFL? I guarantee you they aren't, or else Don Beebe would be in the Hall of Fame. Hey, speaking of Beebe, he also holds the record for most SB appearances by any player ever (shared with Mike Lodish). Since you seem so enamored with useless minutia, you should love his chances of making the Hall!Sorry, I just really don't get your fixation on "signature moments".
Now that's a good post. Oh, and the 1967 Baltimore Colts also went 11-1-2 and missed the playoffs. Their one loss came in the last game of the regular season.
 
Jim Brown is the probably the best Football Player of all time, and definitely the best running back. Its really not even that close.

In addition to having one extra year, Barry Sanders played 16 game seasons compared to 12 game and 14 game seasons for Brown. If you extrapolate Brown's numbers over 16 game seasons he would still hold every single record for RB's in the books. If you also project him playing a couple more seasons, as you state is one of your reasons your reason to keep Barry on top, the records would be unreachable.

There was never a player who could simply take over a game and it didn't matter what anyone else on the field did, like Jim Brown.

Just because you watched Barry live, doesn't make him the better back.

Stats extraplated over 16 games:

Rushing Receiving

G-----------Att----------Yards------Y/A-------TD--------Rec---------Yards-------Y/R--------TD

16----------269---------1263-------4.7-------12---------21------------73---------3.4---------1

16----------343---------2036-------5.9-------23---------21------------184--------8.6---------1

16----------387---------1772-------4.6-------19---------32------------253--------7.9---------0

16----------287---------1676-------5.8-------12---------25------------272--------10.7-------3

16----------348---------1605-------4.6-------9 52--------5-------------23---------10---------2

16----------262---------1135-------4.3-------15---------54------------589--------11---------6

16----------332---------2124-------6.4-------14---------27------------306--------11.2-------3

16----------319---------1648-------5.2-------8-----------41------------388--------9.4--------2

16----------329---------1760-------5.3-------19---------39-------------374-------9.6--------5

Tot:------2876-------15020----5.2-----130-----313----------2962-----9.5----24

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You could probably tell the history of the game WITHOUT mentioning Warren Moon.
:shrug:You'd have an awfully incomplete history of the NFL, maybe to the point of being negligent, if you didn't include the run-and-shoot and it's impact on the game. And if you talk about the run-and-shoot, I gotta think you have to include in the discussion the best quarterback to ever successfully run it in the NFL.
 
You could probably tell the history of the game WITHOUT mentioning Warren Moon.
:thumbdown: You'd have an awfully incomplete history of the NFL, maybe to the point of being negligent, if you didn't include the run-and-shoot and it's impact on the game. And if you talk about the run-and-shoot, I gotta think you have to include in the discussion the best quarterback to ever successfully run it in the NFL.
You could make a strong case for Warren Moon being one of the 10 greatest QB's of all-time. If you included the numbers he had with the Edmonton Eskimos in the CFL, he'd be the greatest statistical passer in the history of football....with the exception to Damon Allen (I haven't researched this). I believe he was a 9 time Pro Bowler in the NFL. The question is, how much do you penalize him for playing in a "Run-n-Shoot" offense?However, my lasting memory of Moon is from January 3rd, 1999. In the AFC Wildcard game, the Houston Oilers were up 35-3 over Buffalo. Frank Reich comes off the bench to throw 4 TD's, guiding his Bills to probably the greatest come from behind victory in the history of the league! I can remember the look of disgust on Moon's face (as he walked off the field) like it was yesterday.

Can we get Frank Reich a little HOF consideration for that incredible performance? :thumbdown:

 
I see the QB's this way:Joe MontanaJohn ElwayJohnny UnitasTom BradyBart StarrPeyton ManningBrett FavreDan MarinoSteve YoungTerry BradshawAs you can see from my list I put a lot of stock in Winning and Leadership. Each of these guys won at least 1 title except Marino.Running BacksJim BrownBarry SandersWalter PaytonGale Sayers (total preference pick. Favorite player of all time)OJ SimpsonEric DickersonLadainian TomlinsonEmmitt SmithEarl CampbellTony DorsettWide ReceiversJerry RiceDon HutsonRandy MossMarvin HarrisonCris CarterDon MaynardSteve LargentPaul WarfieldTerrell OwensLance AlworthReceiver was probably the toughest list for me. I didnt want to pick just all modern players so I had to do some research. Its tough to pick a guy that you have never seen play.I'm also a subscriber, like Moleculo, that knows when he sees a Hall of Famer. Football is not Baseball. Hall of Fame is not simply about accumulating numbers. You must SEE greatness. Curtis Martin is to 20 but not top 10. Jerome Bettis would not be top 30 on my list.
I like your list. I think you have Starr a little high, and Emmitt a little low....but it looks pretty solid.However, claiming that Bettis is not in your top 30 is laughable. He's the 5th best rusher of all-time, and he has a ring. At the very least, he's top 20 (imho).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top