Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

[quote=artmonkforhallofamein07;753616]Charles Mann, Dexter Mannley, Art Monk, or Wilber Marshall didn't make it.

How about some of the Hoggs? Not one of them is in the top 100 of all time. I find that very hard to understand.

I could see one of those guys making the list. Charles Mann in particular. He won four superbowls and has numersous sacks. A truly great player and I believe is worthy and should have been included.[/quote]

Mann won 3 Super Bowls - 2 with the Skins and 1 with the 49ers. The only defensive player to win 3 with the Skins is Monte Coleman.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

[quote=Hog1;753645]#14..........[/quote]

Trvaesty. Idiots made the list.


Sammy helped make the game what it is today. (forward pass)

There's never been a more successful player to contribute on offense, defense AND special teams. He was at the top of the league in EVERY job.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

Sammy Baugh, in my opinion, definitely should have been top 10 based on the stats and highlights I've seen.

I wonder if the knock on him is that the level of competition was maybe lower then and so it was easier to be dominant then?

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

[quote=SmootSmack;756420]Sammy Baugh, in my opinion, definitely should have been top 10 based on the stats and highlights I've seen.

I wonder if the knock on him is that the level of competition was maybe lower then and so it was easier to be dominant then?[/quote]

If thats the case than Don Hutson shouldnt have made the top 10

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

Too bad they didn't create this list back in the 60's and 70's, it's all a bunch of shit of who controls the voting. Rice should not be #1, he piled most of his stats against the Falcons, Saints and Rams, those 3 teams sucked in the 80's and 90's. An old timer should have been #1.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

The Falcons had Dieon Sanders who was also on the list. The Saint's defense was good for the most part; it was their offense that sucked. The Rams were the same way until they entered the 90's.

Jerry Rice did it in playoff games against very good defenses as well. Now you may not like the fact that Jerry is number one but don't try to play down his accomplishments.

Look up the defensive stats for those teams yourself.

[URL="http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=OPP&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&season=1986&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=true&Submit=Go"]NFL Stats: by Team Category[/URL]

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

[quote=Angry;756467]The Falcons had Dieon Sanders who was also on the list. The Saint's defense was good for the most part; it was their offense that sucked. The Rams were the same way until they entered the 90's.

Jerry Rice did it in playoff games against very good defenses as well. Now you may not like the fact that Jerry is number one but don't try to play down his accomplishments.

Look up the defensive stats for those teams yourself.

[URL="http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=OPP&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&season=1986&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=true&Submit=Go"]NFL Stats: by Team Category[/URL][/quote]

I watched all the 49ers games and those teams (Rams,Saints, Falcons) sucked, Monk would have eaten those guys alive if they were in NFC East. Sanders wasn't always covering Rice, Rice was a great receiver and yes he got a lot of help from playing in a shitty division. I would have liked to see what he would have done if he played the NFC East twice a season.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

I disagree with alot of that list, Rice had help and longer seasons to build stats, Jim Brown did it by himself (to a point) in what 6 - 7 years.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

Jerry Rice was a great reciever,there no doubt.But he had 2 of the greatest qbs of all time throwing to him.If he has JC as his Qb throw half his stats out the window.Montana and Young always seemed to hit rice in perfect stride on crossing routes{something the redskins qbs have never figured out how to do}and he had the ability to do something great with it.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

[quote=Giantone;756572]I disagree with alot of that list, Rice had help and longer seasons to build stats, Jim Brown did it by himself (to a point) in what 6 - 7 years.[/quote]

As did Simpson and Sanders.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

I'm glad they put Reggie White in the Top-10 and that he was the highest rated lineman. I'll never forget him stripping Doug Williams and returning the ball 70 yards for a TD. He must have been the fastest 300 lb man on the planet, and damn near the strongest too. A perfect storm for rushing the QB and stuffing the run.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

[quote=SouperMeister;756579]I'm glad they put Reggie White in the Top-10 and that he was the highest rated lineman. I'll never forget him stripping Doug Williams and returning the ball 70 yards for a TD. He must have been the fastest 300 lb man on the planet, and damn near the strongest too. A perfect storm for rushing the QB and stuffing the run.[/quote]

The 4 best defensive players I've ever seen (can't count the old guys since i didn't see them play) are:

Jack Lambert
Joe Greene
Lawrence Taylor
Reggie White

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

[quote=skinsfanthru&thru;756576]As did Simpson and Sanders.[/quote]

yes and no, both had the benifit of playing longer seasons for stats had it not been for a knee injury G Sayers would have out run both of them.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

[quote=Giantone;756615]yes and no, both had the benifit of playing longer seasons for stats had it not been for a knee injury G Sayers would have out run both of them.[/quote]

I meant the fact that those two did what they did essentially without any supporting talent around them. Brown actually played for 9 years Vs Sanders playing 10 years and only averaged 5 more yards a game whereas Sayers averaged 28 yards less a game than Brown. All 3 were rare specimens at the RB position, but I think Brown and Sanders were more natural rbs whereas Sayers more so was a beast in the openfield like in the return game.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

[quote=skinsfanthru&thru;756621]I meant the fact that those two did what they did essentially without any supporting talent around them. Brown actually played for 9 years Vs Sanders playing 10 years and only averaged 5 more yards a game whereas Sayers averaged 28 yards less a game than Brown. All 3 were rare specimens at the RB position, but I think Brown and Sanders were more natural rbs whereas Sayers more so was a beast in the openfield like in the return game.[/quote]



Can't argue .I am lucky enought to say I got to see all 3 play.....but I will admit I was really (really) young when I saw Jim Brown...was a pre season game.