gbpack12_2_89
Bleeding Green and Gold
Also how is nitschke at 47?? He's one of the best lb to ever play the game this list is a joke and a popularity contest watch Favre manning or Brady will b number one cuz it's all a joke
100 greatest players of all time
- Thread starter ivo610
- Start date
Too low or too high?
I don't think you can put him much higher or lower. Look at his numbers. Best TE of all time and it's not even close.
I don't know about best linebacker ever. 1 pro bowl is the biggest knock on him. Is he better than any of the bears linebackers? I don't know if he changed the game like LT. His career overall i don't think is as impressive as ray Lewis's career. Just my opinion though.
Jim brown I assume is #1
Green_Bay_Packers
Cheesehead
I just feel that he belongs somewhere in the 50's
I dont think he should be at 45. There is many more players that were better and did more.
I just feel that he belongs somewhere in the 50's
I dont think he should be at 45. There is many more players that were better and did more.
Fair enough. I am a little surprised at how many current day players are going to be in the top 50.
Tom Brady asked about his favorite ring "The next one"
Thought that was pretty good.
Ray Lewis (fav non packer) is between 11-20. Which might seem high to some people but I think 5-10 years after he retires it will be a good spot for him in most peoples eyes.
Thought that was pretty good.
Ray Lewis (fav non packer) is between 11-20. Which might seem high to some people but I think 5-10 years after he retires it will be a good spot for him in most peoples eyes.
Kitten
Feline Cheesehead
Tom Brady at #21, that's too high! Swap him with Emmitt's #28 maybe...
Incubes12
Bay Harbor Butcher?
Seems kind of low for Marino. I still think he did one of the best jobs with little time in the league. Compare him on a year to year basis, and he should be above Favre.
bozo
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2010
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 14
I think, it's interesting seeing Emmit Smith (#28 all time rushing leader) higher up than Gayle Sayers (#22 who was exceptional, but had a short lived career). I think longevity has to be considered in a "Top One Hundred" list.
This "Top One Hundred" program is bogus on several points.
1. It's regionally biased
2. Should be retired players only
3. If I've said this once, I've said it 100 times...You can't fairly compare FB players from different era's...the fields have changed, the equipment has drastically changed, & most important, the players are Bigger, Faster, & More Athletic. .
Example: HOF'er Henry Jordan played defensive tackle for GB in the '60s at 250 lbs. Do you think he would have an impact today at that weight...Ryan Picket is listed at 340 lbs. Raji at 337, & Jenkins at 305
This "Top One Hundred" program is bogus on several points.
1. It's regionally biased
2. Should be retired players only
3. If I've said this once, I've said it 100 times...You can't fairly compare FB players from different era's...the fields have changed, the equipment has drastically changed, & most important, the players are Bigger, Faster, & More Athletic. .
Example: HOF'er Henry Jordan played defensive tackle for GB in the '60s at 250 lbs. Do you think he would have an impact today at that weight...Ryan Picket is listed at 340 lbs. Raji at 337, & Jenkins at 305
For full disclosure I am not a Marino fan at all, but dan was a huge choke artist in the playoffs. I would say almost as much as favre.
1. What makes it regionally biased? Not enough big 10 players or are we talking not enough packer players?
2. Why? Whats it matter if we have to wait a few more years? Does anyone argue that Favre isnt one of the 100 greatest? Tony Gonzalez is 6th all time for career receptions and he is 33. He will retire most likely as #2 all time, that should at the least secure him a spot. Brady has 3 rings and a top 3 all time QB season, he could retire tomorrow and start heading to canton, anything more is gravy.
3. Yes you can, you compare how they dominated their generation. Little tougher with defensive players as the stats arent always there but its easy to put Hutson in the top 10 when you look at how he dominated. Thats why Sayers makes a high spot on the list. Straight up dominated for when he was in the league, and many vets say he is the greatest they ever saw.
I just love lists like this and think its great Sabol put something like this together that no matter what would get ripped.
bozo
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2010
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 14
You said "how they dominated in their generation", of which I totally agree...if they did a list for the 50's, 60's 70' ect separately it would be more meaningful.
Jim Brown dominated his position in the 50's, & Peterson is one of the best today. Now you could look at their stats, compare their strength, 40 yd sprint, bench press, & things like that, BUT, you can't duplicate the defensive players of the 50's to todays. The 2 did NOT play against the same competition...which is why I think is a stretch to compare over different "era's".
Big Dan
Cheesehead
Ray Nitschke was one of my favorite players of all time. Tough as nails. So was Butkus. I hated him for being a Bear, but he sure could play the position.
If you put those 2 guys, in their prime, on the field today they'd leave on a stretcher or in a body bag by halftime.
If you put those 2 guys, in their prime, on the field today they'd leave on a stretcher or in a body bag by halftime.
Incubes12
Bay Harbor Butcher?
What makes Brett so much better then? He played longer? So he has more records?
I don't think brett is that much better. By a slim margin would I say Brett is better. I have favre about the 10th best QB of all time. Longevity helps and 1 SB puts him just a tiny bit better in my eyes. it's the eye of the beholder. Marino is in tarkenton territory. Retired with all the records and no championships.
Them with today's weight lifting and overall nutrition would absolutely leave bodies on the field.
Let's wait til the list is complete before we argue if it's biased or not.
Well we do have a HOF waiting period so they wouldnt go in now. But all 3 could retire tomorrow and make plans for canton in 5 years.
They do do a decade list for each decade but I think we will agree to disagree that you can compare different players in different eras.
Anyone you feel should or shouldn't be on the list? If it's someone super high profile I think we can assume they are top 20.
Big Dan
Cheesehead
I don't think so. They were elite athletes in their day, but the human race continues to evolve. We're getting bigger, stronger, faster. In 1900, the average height of a man was something like 5' 2". Yes, today's workouts and nutrition would have gotten more out of their skill sets; but the natural skill set that those guys had, while making them elite in their day, wouldn't make them elite today. They'd be very good, but not elite. It's just nature.
We all want to romanticize things gone past, but reality says otherwise. Guys like to talk about muscle cars of the past, but by today's standards they're slugs. Time marches on.
Besides very rare jumps evolution goes at a snail pace. As far as the avg height for the 1900s I dont think your guess is very accurate. The avg man in the colonial era was about 5'7 as opposed to now which is 5'9. They contribute the extra 2 inches over 300 + years to better nutrition and medicine.
If you want an example of someone who would be an elite athlete look at don hutson. He would out run any white guy in the league today I bet.
gbpack12_2_89
Bleeding Green and Gold
I really think that Barry Sanders deserved to be in the top 10 for sure
the greatest wr of all time. Who has a shot at being 1 but wont be.
Similar threads
Members online
No members online now.
