You mean to tell me that someone would actually take Antonio Brown over Aaron Rodgers? How disrespectful.
Well, what constitutes "best"? What scoring criteria does NFL Films give the players? From what I can tell, it's nothing other than list the "20 best" in your opinion with 20 points assigned to #1, 19 to #2, etc., and then they add up the scores.
What does "best" even mean? Since that is left to the imagination, consider some possibilities that might float through a voter's mind:
1) If you threw all of the players in a pot and held a redraft of the entire league, the first 10 guys, maybe more, coming off the board would be QBs. Given the age difference between Brady and Rodgers, you expect Rodgers to be first off the board. This is clearly not the criteria used by most voters.
2) Is the vote based on a 2016 All Pro-type criteria? J.J. Watt thinks it should be. He thinks it's a joke that he's on the list at #35 considering he did not play. A sufficient number of voters obviously thinks they are voting for something else.
3) In some respects it kinda sorta looks like a comparison of All Pro vote counts. Did the 4 non-QBs ahead of Rodgers on the list perform at their positions better than Rodgers did as a QB? That's plausible. However, if that were actually the criteria, the top 10 would track closer to the number of All Pro votes in something like this order:
1. (tie) J. Tucker - 50 votes
1. (tie) T. Hill - 50 votes
3. B. Wagner - 48 votes
4. (tie) A. Donald - 47 votes
4. (tie) Osemele - 47 votes
4. (tie) V. Miller - 47 votes
4. (tee) E. Elliott - 47 votes
4. (tie) L. Collins - 47 votes
9. K. Mack - 46 votes
10. T. Kelce - 44 votes
Clearly, position value carries weight in the minds of voters...offensive skill position and edge rushers draw more votes. But that's an unclear influence since the top 10 are not QBs.
4) It's called the "2017" list. Is this supposed to be a projection of who will kill it in 2017? This would take into account a lot of factors including the body of work. Those who voted for Watt might thinks so; the ones who did not evidently did not. And if that were the case, then the rookie class should be included. Janis will break out this year...I have him at #100.
The criteria questions above are unanswered. Evidently all of these possibilities are left open to the voters' imaginations.
Further, are the players the best to judge? Only about 30% even submitted a ballot in 2013. I don't know the current participation rate, but Connor Barwin tweeted, to paraphrase, "everybody knows the players don't vote, right?" Most players (1) don't think the exercise is worth the time or (2) they rightly believe they are not qualified since they have not played with, against or even seen on TV most of the players in the league or (3) they don't believe such lists have validity or (4) like me, they may believe without stated criteria the result is a junky mish-mash.
In the final analysis, this kind of vote is kinda like taking a poll asking folks, "what's the best food"? Is that the food you like to eat most often (pizza?), the food you think is best for you (a plate of organic fruits and vegetables?), the food that provides the basic nutrition for the most people on planet earth (rice? wheat bread?).
NFL Films would be better served to license the All Pro list from the AP or from somebody like PFF where there is some clear criteria on which the list is based and throw in some player commentary for entertainment value. Of course, the problem with that is you end up talking more about boring punters, offensive linemen, DTs, ILBs, safeties.
Watching Bobby Wagner closing on a slant route or running sideline to sideline and blowing up a sweep doesn't quite communicate the leadership and performance glue that liberates play makers to make plays. Boooooooring!
C'est la vie.
