NFL Network Top 10 Players of All TIme

DarkKnight · Post #1 » by **DarkKnight** » Mon Nov 1, 2010 9:45 pm

So I'm sure everyone is aware of the NFL Network Top 100 Players list that they've been doing for the last 9 weeks. The final 10 broadcast is this thursday. Having looked at the 90 that have been named, I'm fairly sure I know the top 10 (I'm sure of 9 or them and guessing at the 10th). Thought it would be fun for the community to guess at the final order of these 10 (and feel free to let me know if you think a different 10th guy should be in there, just make sure that he's not already in the first 90 at http://top100.nfl.com/ and that you're not naming someone who has no chance at the top 10.

The definite 9:

Joe Montana
Jerry Rice
LT
Peyton Manning
Walter Payton
Dick Butkus
Reggie White
Jim Brown
Johnny Unitas

The other guy:

I'm fairly sure its George Blanda - too good not to be top 100 (especially with how big they've been on the older group of guys)

What does everyone think?

Roger Murdock · Post #2 » by **Roger Murdock** » Tue Nov 2, 2010 3:46 am

Joe Namath was ranked 100. He was not in any shape or form a top 1000 player in NFL history. He sucked.

Fran Tarkenton and Steve young too low.

WAYSA · Post #3 » by **WAYSA** » Tue Nov 2, 2010 5:56 am

Bruce Matthews

And Deion were too low IMO

The Explorer · Post #4 » by **The Explorer** » Tue Nov 2, 2010 5:01 pm

Tomlinson is already there at #61.

Post #5 » by **VintaGe36** » Tue Nov 2, 2010 5:22 pm

Think he meant Lawrence Taylor.

Post #6 » by **el loco** » Tue Nov 2, 2010 6:35 pm

The team with the most rings doesn't even get a guy in the top 10, that sounds about right.

Roger Murdock · Post #7 » by **Roger Murdock** » Tue Nov 2, 2010 7:09 pm

I'm fairly certain the 10th man will be Don Hutson and not George Blanda.

Post #8 » by **studcrackers** » Wed Nov 3, 2010 3:19 am

el loco wrote:The team with the most rings doesn't even get a guy in the top 10, that sounds about right.

what steelers player would you put there?

Post #9 » by **Icness** » Wed Nov 3, 2010 12:44 pm

Otto Graham was too low at #16. The guy played 12 seasons, won 7 titles and lost in the championship game in 4 of the other 5. Most accurate QB of his era.

Dan Marino way too high. WTF did he do other than throw the ball a whole lot more than anyone else? Swap him and Bruce Matthews at #78 and it looks better.

I think Barry Sanders is probably a bit high

No way should Kellen Winslow be ahead of Ozzie Newsome, that's freaking criminal.

The bottom 15 are all easy to leave off and/or replace. I would move Kurt Warner up, maybe Larry Allen too but neither real far.
Some guys I missed:
John Stallworth
Rickey Jackson
Torry Holt
Howie Long
Jim Kelly

Bay_Areas_Finest · Post #10 » by **Bay_Areas_Finest** » Wed Nov 3, 2010 3:48 pm

Steve Young is way too low and John Elway in the top 25? LOL.

Roger Murdock · Post #11 » by **Roger Murdock** » Wed Nov 3, 2010 8:43 pm

Can someone please explain to me what made Joe Namath a good quarterback. 1 superbowl, lots of interceptions, a low completion %, not that many TD passes, mediocre team record, and almost no playoff success minus one year where they won the superbowl.

Post #12 » by **Icness** » Fri Nov 5, 2010 12:50 pm

Roger Murdock wrote:Can someone please explain to me what made Joe Namath a good quarterback. 1 superbowl, lots of interceptions, a low completion %, not that many TD passes, mediocre team record, and almost no playoff success minus one year where they won the superbowl.

I've been asking that for years. Peter King actually bit on it a couple years ago and here's the crux of what he said:
--great deep ball thrower and that was the Jets offense most of his career, that high risk/reward vertical passing game
--injuries robbed him of much more acheivement
--the significance of the Jets win in Super Bowl III, which King and many others consider the most important game in pro football history

I'm not sure Namath would make my top 100 QBs let alone top 100 overall but I only saw the very end of his career.

ZedgetRedd · Post #13 » by **ZedgetRedd** » Fri Nov 5, 2010 1:04 pm

Moss was 65 and Torry Holt, Marvin Harrison and Owens didn't make it?

WAYSA · Post #14 » by **WAYSA** » Fri Nov 5, 2010 9:55 pm

I can't help but laugh at Jerry Rice being #1.

He might be the most overrated athlete of all time. There is absolutely no way this guy was a better pure football player than guys like Jim Brown, Walter Payton, etc.. I am literally depressed over here looking at him being #1. Sick sick sick.

Siem · Post #15 » by **Siem** » Tue Nov 9, 2010 5:17 am

some1 complaining at Dan Marino being 23 and saying he should be 78 lmao. yea ok(sarcasitcally).smh.

I dont agree with J.Rice being #1 but to say he might be the most overrated athlete of all time is one ofthe most ridicolous statments i have ever heard. smh again.

Siem · Post #16 » by **Siem** » Tue Nov 9, 2010 5:19 am

anywho no one ever said he was one of the Greatest Athletes like Moss or Vick, but arguably the best football player, Yes Jerry Rice is in that discussion, and this is Coming from A Giants fan,so it's no bias....I would probably say Jim Brown, now I've never seen Jim Brown play,but he domianted his era like no other,and when you have that many people who watched football,players,coaches,fans etc, saying he's the best football player they've ever seen it must be some truth to it...Im just glad to see LT at #3 He deserved it.

LAKESHOW · Post #17 » by **LAKESHOW** » Tue Nov 9, 2010 7:29 am

the way they did it was that each player was assigned a number, 10 for example for top notch grade. most everyone agrees, that when they went over the names, jerry rice was a 10. when you add up how many 10s jerry received, he was the one with the most. there is debate in quarterback, runningback etc... but with the receiver position, jerry rices name cannot be debated. if it is, hes like top 2. jim brown is tops in most, but some would stack OJ, sanders, walter payton, emmit smith etc. up in the range. with quarterback, manning, elway, montana etc... but not the receiver position. dude owns most of the records. has the superbowl rings. done it all, so when attributed the grade, he was never rated 3rd or lower. thus, top grade overall.

Post #18 » by **Harry Palmer** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:02 am

Jerry Rice is to the NFL what Gretzky was to hockey. What he did to the numbers is simply stunning, and anyone who doesn't think he's at the very least in the serious discussion for GOAT is not imo making any sense. The irony is that the best argument against him....positional bias...in fact helps his argument because of what he did to the overall records in spite of playing a traditionally lesser position.

cb4_89 · Post #19 » by **cb4_89** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Harry Palmer wrote:Jerry Rice is to the NFL what Gretzky was to hockey. What he did to the numbers is simply stunning, and anyone who doesn't think he's at the very least in the serious discussion for GOAT is not imo making any sense. The irony is that the best argument against him....positional bias...in fact helps his argument because of what he did to the overall records in spite of playing a traditionally lesser position.

No he isn't. Gretzky is way more important to hockey. Gretzky is easily the GOAT and his records will literally never fall. Jerry Rice will get competition from Randy Moss and TO depending on how long he wants to play.

Roger Murdock · Post #20 » by **Roger Murdock** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:44 pm

cb4_89 wrote:
Harry Palmer wrote:Jerry Rice is to the NFL what Gretzky was to hockey. What he did to the numbers is simply stunning, and anyone who doesn't think he's at the very least in the serious discussion for GOAT is not imo making any sense. The irony is that the best argument against him....positional bias...in fact helps his argument because of what he did to the overall records in spite of playing a traditionally lesser position.

No he isn't. Gretzky is way more important to hockey. Gretzky is easily the GOAT and his records will literally never fall. Jerry Rice will get competition from Randy Moss and TO depending on how long he wants to play.

The competition from TO and Moss isn't really much of a threat unless they play till their mid 40s or so.

Additionally, every team has 4 receivers that play a substantial role, while each team only has 1 quarterback. So he dwarves the competition by a larger amount than anyone, at the position where there is the most competition to begin with.