View Full Version : Top 25 NFL players of the past 25 years
geschinger
06-28-2007, 09:25 PM
If anyone is interested...
USA Today is running a daily countdown of whom they chose as the Top 25 NFL players of the past 25 years.
Top 25 NFL players of the past 25 years (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2007-top-25-series.htm)
bretholmes4
06-29-2007, 11:47 AM
1982-2007
Bradshaw was a BEAST :rolleyes:
1982 pit | 9 | 127 240 52.9 1768 7.4 17 11 | 8 10 0 |
| 1983 pit | 1 | 5 8 62.5 77 9.6 2 0 | 1 3 0
The fact that Ray is not in the top 10 is a shame. Nobody dominated for 5 years like Ray Lewis...nobody
1982-2007
Bradshaw was a BEAST :rolleyes:
1982 pit | 9 | 127 240 52.9 1768 7.4 17 11 | 8 10 0 |
| 1983 pit | 1 | 5 8 62.5 77 9.6 2 0 | 1 3 0
The fact that Ray is not in the top 10 is a shame. Nobody dominated for 5 years like Ray Lewis...nobody
From the article:
About this series: A panel of 10 NFL reporters and editors at USA TODAY cast votes in this project. Points were assigned (25 points for the player voted No. 1, 24 points for No. 2, etc.), and the cumulative points determined the rankings.
• The list covers the past 25 seasons. Instructions to panelists stated that if a player competed in any one of those seasons, then the player's entire career could be considered for the rankings.
bretholmes4
06-29-2007, 04:05 PM
From the article:
Gay - - this panel is bogus anyway!!!:D
Any predictions on who the last 13 or so will be...?
Gay - - this panel is bogus anyway!!!:D
Any predictions on who the last 13 or so will be...?
They're up (down?) to 16 now.
My guesses (these are predictions, not my personal picks) for the top 15, in no order:
Payton, Rice, E. Smith, Marino, Elway, Manning, Montana, B. Sanders, R. White, Brady, L. Taylor, B. Smith, Favre, Kelly, Moon
geschinger
07-02-2007, 03:15 PM
The fact that Ray is not in the top 10 is a shame. Nobody dominated for 5 years like Ray Lewis...nobody
If you are only talking about defense he's right up there but I think the same could be said about others like Mr. Taylor.
They're up (down?) to 16 now.
My guesses (these are predictions, not my personal picks) for the top 15, in no order:
Payton, Rice, E. Smith, Marino, Elway, Manning, Montana, B. Sanders, R. White, Brady, L. Taylor, B. Smith, Favre, Kelly, Moon
Smith and Favre are 15 and 14.
Anyone think any of my remaining 13 are wrong? I'm least sure about Kelly and Moon. I think Kelly will make it though for 4 AFC championships. Moon's iffy. Especially with Favre, Aikman, and Young already on the board in higher spots.
geschinger
07-03-2007, 11:19 AM
Smith and Favre are 15 and 14.
Anyone think any of my remaining 13 are wrong? I'm least sure about Kelly and Moon. I think Kelly will make it though for 4 AFC championships. Moon's iffy. Especially with Favre, Aikman, and Young already on the board in higher spots.
It may be bias on my part but I believe that Starvin Marvin Harrison who will go down as the second best WR in the history of the game belongs on this list.
Birds of B'more
07-03-2007, 03:06 PM
Smith and Favre are 15 and 14.
Anyone think any of my remaining 13 are wrong? I'm least sure about Kelly and Moon. I think Kelly will make it though for 4 AFC championships. Moon's iffy. Especially with Favre, Aikman, and Young already on the board in higher spots.
I wouldn't put either Kelly or Moon in there. Given the criteria that the player's entire career counts as long as he played as recently as 1982 (which is BS IMO) then I'd place Dan Fouts before those 2 QBs........although I'm not sure Fouts makes the Top 25 either. I would add Ronnie Lott to the list in place of one of the QBs mentioned above. Maybe Marcus Allen as the other?
Birds of B'more
07-03-2007, 03:15 PM
Also, don't forget offensive linemen........don't they count? Anthony Munoz, Bruce Matthews, Jon Ogden.
Also, don't forget offensive linemen........don't they count? Anthony Munoz, Bruce Matthews, Jon Ogden.
Munoz is number 13. Nice job thinking about the OLine.
Also, don't forget offensive linemen........don't they count? Anthony Munoz, Bruce Matthews, Jon Ogden.
You're right, I totally forgot offensive linemen!
Ronnie Lott and Marvin Harrison were two other guys I forgot about.
I considered Fouts and Allen and didn't think they'd make it. Could be wrong, though.
Munoz is 13, Manning is 12.
geschinger
07-06-2007, 11:19 AM
Manning is way too low on this list.
Birds of B'more
07-06-2007, 12:59 PM
You're right, I totally forgot offensive linemen!
Ronnie Lott and Marvin Harrison were two other guys I forgot about.
I considered Fouts and Allen and didn't think they'd make it. Could be wrong, though.
Munoz is 13, Manning is 12.
Now that we're down to 11 remaining, I think we can count out Allen, Fouts and Harrison. Just for fun, here's my final 11 in order.
11) Ronnie Lott
10) Tom Brady
9) Barry Sanders
8) Reggie White
7) Emmitt Smith
6) Joe Montana
5) Lawrence Taylor
4) Walter Payton
3) Dan Marino
2) Jerry Rice
1) John Elway
Birds of B'more
07-06-2007, 01:06 PM
Manning is way too low on this list.
Manning is about where he should be, for right now. Do another one of these in 5 years and he'll be much higher.
geschinger
07-06-2007, 04:10 PM
Manning is about where he should be, for right now. Do another one of these in 5 years and he'll be much higher.
I would assume Marino is yet to come and I can't think of a credible argument for him over Manning at this stage of Manning's career.
Manning is about where he should be, for right now. Do another one of these in 5 years and he'll be much higher.
Yeah, I agree. He'll likely end up as one of the top 5 QB's ever, but he still has work to do.
I would assume Marino is yet to come and I can't think of a credible argument for him over Manning at this stage of Manning's career.
Well he has plenty of records that would create a credible argument imo. Yes, Peyton now has the SB, but he's also had a lot more talent around him, and was considered a choker until this past playoffs. And I'm guessing they're rating Marino's whole career, not bringing him back to Manning's age.
Birds of B'more
07-06-2007, 06:34 PM
I would assume Marino is yet to come and I can't think of a credible argument for him over Manning at this stage of Manning's career.
Longetivity. While Manning has a shot at breaking the major career statistical records, right now it's still Marino's name that's in the books.
geschinger
07-06-2007, 07:25 PM
Well he has plenty of records that would create a credible argument imo. Yes, Peyton now has the SB, but he's also had a lot more talent around him, and was considered a choker until this past playoffs. And I'm guessing they're rating Marino's whole career, not bringing him back to Manning's age.
Manning has nowhere near the talent around him that Marino had in his early years. Marino didn't make everyone else around him better to the extent that Manning does. Look at players who have had the opportunity to play with Manning and elsewhere and you'll see a huge disparity in their productivity.
Longetivity. While Manning has a shot at breaking the major career statistical records, right now it's still Marino's name that's in the books.
Longevity is the only advantage and I would think winning should trump that. While Marino certainly has gaudy numbers I don't think his peak compares to Mannings peak as he always threw too many interceptions IMO.
Manning has nowhere near the talent around him that Marino had in his early years. Marino didn't make everyone else around him better to the extent that Manning does. Look at players who have had the opportunity to play with Manning and elsewhere and you'll see a huge disparity in their productivity.
Longevity is the only advantage and I would think winning should trump that. While Marino certainly has gaudy numbers I don't think his peak compares to Mannings peak as he always threw too many interceptions IMO.
You're going to have to prove to me that Manning has had nowhere near the talent around him compared to Marino in his early years, I don't think that's the case. Plus, to be fair, they were his early years.
Of course receivers are going to do better in Indy compared to most places, I would think receivers benefited from playing with Marino as well.
Manning's peak is incredible, but I also think in a way, comparing QB's and WR's of today compared to one's back in the 80's is almost like comparing sluggers of today vs the one's in the 80's. The difference in football is probably not as extreme as the baseball example, but you get the point.
Plus, I don't think peak is the only factor here.
geschinger
07-06-2007, 08:17 PM
You're going to have to prove to me that Manning has had nowhere near the talent around him compared to Marino in his early years, I don't think that's the case. Plus, to be fair, they were his early years.
Of course receivers are going to do better in Indy compared to most places, I would think receivers benefited from playing with Marino as well.
Manning's peak is incredible, but I also think in a way, comparing QB's and WR's of today compared to one's back in the 80's is almost like comparing sluggers of today vs the one's in the 80's. The difference in football is probably not as extreme as the baseball example, but you get the point.
Plus, I don't think peak is the only factor here.
It's just a bunch of writers ranking their top twenty five players. I'd assume every voter has a somewhat unique criteria for their rankings. I just can't imagine how many/most can conclude that there have been a dozen better players than Manning over the past 25 years.
As for Marino's supporting cast... I grew up subjected to the torture of growing up a Colts fan in South Florida. I think the Marks brothers and Nat Moore were every bit as good a WR core as what the Colts have had in recent years. They didn't have the one stud RB but did get decent production out of a rb by committee approach and some outstanding offensive linemen.
The one thing that Manning does that Marino never did was to perfect his ball handling skills. Manning's ability to utilize the play action fake gives the Colts RBs a huge advantage. Dominick Rhodes will learn the hard lessons that Edgerrin James learned last year just how much Manning makes life better for the RBs.
You are right abot the complexities of comparing eras. But I'm not sure how I would come down on that. They've limited some of the contact that DBs can have w/WRs in recent years but I also think defenses were a lot less complicated and sophisticated in the 80s than they are now.
Didn't you just say Marvin will go down as the #2 WR ever? And I know you love Wayne, and rightfully so. There's no way the Mark's compare to those two.
Offenses are also more complex. I'm pretty sure passing yards, completion %, and QB ratings have gone up a good deal since the 80's.
geschinger
07-06-2007, 08:57 PM
Didn't you just say Marvin will go down as the #2 WR ever? And I know you love Wayne, and rightfully so. There's no way the Mark's compare to those two.
Offenses are also more complex. I'm pretty sure passing yards, completion %, and QB ratings have gone up a good deal since the 80's.
I think the Marks brothers are close to Wayne/Harrison with an advantage to the Colts but it is what Miami had behind the Marks brothers that more than makes up the difference. Stokely looked like he might be the competent 3rd WR but couldn't stay on the field. It's why I'm so happy that the Colts went WR in round one to try and get Manning a 3rd reliable WR so that they can open things up a bit offensively.
I'm not sure about how the QB ratings of today compare to those of yesterday although I do know that the guy at the top of the list and another top 5 guy are from previous eras. What I do know is that not Marino, not Elway, not Montana, not Favre, not anyone over the past 25 years has had as much responsibility put on his shoulders as Manning has.
Moore was nothing special and towards the end of his career by the time Marino came into the league. Any other examples to bridge that large gap?
geschinger
07-06-2007, 09:42 PM
Moore was nothing special and towards the end of his career by the time Marino came into the league. Any other examples to bridge that large gap?
How wide a gap do you think it is? While Harrison and Wayne catch a lot more passes than either of the Marks brothers did both were significantly better in YPC. I don't think he's a huge disparity between the pairs. And while he wasn't a WR I'm pretty sure guys like Tony Nathan were much more of a threat in the passing game than the Colts RBs were. After Moore retired there were guys like Jim Jensen, Tony Martin who were somewhat productive. The Colts WR core has been so thin that w/Stokely's inability to stay on the field that they literally couldn't run a 3 WR set most of the year. Dallas Clark was a much better option in the slot than any of the other WRs on the roster.
How wide a gap do you think it is? While Harrison and Wayne catch a lot more passes than either of the Marks brothers did both were significantly better in YPC. I don't think he's a huge disparity between the pairs. And while he wasn't a WR I'm pretty sure guys like Tony Nathan were much more of a threat in the passing game than the Colts RBs were. After Moore retired there were guys like Jim Jensen, Tony Martin who were somewhat productive. The Colts WR core has been so thin that w/Stokely's inability to stay on the field that they literally couldn't run a 3 WR set most of the year. Dallas Clark was a much better option in the slot than any of the other WRs on the roster.
Well if Harrison is the #2 WR ever, the gap is basically decided by the #2 WR of all time compared to a 5 time pro bowl WR who isn't HOF worthy. Because Wayne is at least as good as Duper.
Nathan was similiar to James at receiving out of the backfield. Edit: Don't forget Faulk for a year either.
And thanks for bringing up Clark, the Colts have had good TE's.
And Jensen did emerge as a solid possesion WR when Clayton and Duper were starting to decline. I'm not seeing him being any better than guys like Pathon, Wilkins, Ismail, and Stokely. But yes, the 3rd WR spot was an issue last year.
geschinger
07-06-2007, 10:20 PM
Well if Harrison is the #2 WR ever, the gap is basically decided by the #2 WR of all time compared to a 5 time pro bowl WR who isn't HOF worthy. Because Wayne is at least as good as Duper.
Nathan was similiar to James at receiving out of the backfield.
And thanks for bringing up Clark, the Colts have had good TE's.
And Jensen did emerge as a solid possesion WR when Clayton and Duper were starting to decline. I'm not seeing him being any better than guys like Pathon, Wilkins, Ismail, and Stokely. But yes, the 3rd WR spot was an issue last year.
Harrison is the #2 WR of all time due to excellent production and longevity. Longevity is where the Marks brothers fall far short. I suspect the allure of cocaine had a lot to do with that. But at their peak they were as good as anyone.
I'd have to look at the numbers for Nathan or maybe I'm downgrading Edgerrin's accomplishments in the passing game. It always struck me that Edgerrin was fine for the dump off and occasionally would be a primary target whereas Nathan was more of a focus in the passing game. I'd suspect Nathan got a lot more YPC compared to Edge.
Clark is solid but the Dolphins have always had some decent TEs for Marino.
But yes, the 3rd WR spot was an issue last year.
A true nightmare. In the offseason they worked hard at opening up the offense and when Stokely went down it really hurt them. Especially in the playoffs where a quality 3rd WR would of made a ton of difference against Baltimore and NE.
Harrison is the #2 WR of all time due to excellent production and longevity. Longevity is where the Marks brothers fall far short. I suspect the allure of cocaine had a lot to do with that.
At this point, Marvin doesn't really have much of a longevity advantage, he does however have a quite a production advantage. So again, big gap. And obviously the Colts have had much better RB's.
BTW, look at the Dolphins WR's between 1992 and 1997, pretty bad.
geschinger
07-06-2007, 10:41 PM
At this point, Marvin doesn't really have much of a longevity advantage, he does however have a quite a production advantage. So again, big gap. And obviously the Colts have had much better RB's.
Not in number of games but for whatever reason over the last 1/3 or so of Claytons career he was a shell of the player he was during the mid 80s. Marvin Harrison has been as consistent as it gets for more than a decade.
Yes, I agree about the RB but some of that has to do with Manning making life easier for the RBs in a way that Marino never did. Edge was/is very talented but there is a huge difference pre/post Manning. And you will see the same huge drop off with Rhodes this year. I have no doubt that Oakland will regret the Rhodes signing. Addai comes in and does a bang up job. The Dolphis addressed the RB position a few times while Marino was there and it never really worked out that well.
Not in number of games but for whatever reason over the last 1/3 or so of Claytons career he was a shell of the player he was during the mid 80s. Marvin Harrison has been as consistent as it gets for more than a decade.
Alright, well I think that supports my point that Marino did not have the better supporting cast, and again, neither of the Marks were as good as Marvin in his prime.
geschinger
07-06-2007, 10:53 PM
Alright, well I think that supports my point that Marino did not have the better supporting cast, and again, neither of the Marks were as good as Marvin in his prime.
You are assuming that after the Marks departed Marino only had chopped liver to work with. He had some decent WR come in afterwards. A guy like Irving Fryar had some very nice years with productivity that compares favorably with the kind of numbers Wayne puts up. Manning and the Colts are lucky though that both Wayne/Harrison came in around the same time as Manning did and a large part of their careers / prime overlap nicely.
You are assuming that after the Marks departed Marino only had chopped liver to work with. He had some decent WR come in afterwards. A guy like Irving Fryar had some very nice years with productivity that compares favorably with the kind of numbers Wayne puts up. Manning and the Colts are lucky though that both Wayne/Harrison came in around the same time as Manning did and a large part of their careers / prime overlap nicely.
I'm not assuming that at all, I looked it up, and he did have mediocre to poor groups of WR's from 1992 to 1997. Fryar was good, but he was their #1 for the 3 years he was there, so you should be comparing Mark Ingram and a washed up Gary Clark to Wayne.
geschinger
07-06-2007, 11:36 PM
I'm not assuming that at all, I looked it up, and he did have mediocre to poor groups of WR's from 1992 to 1997. Fryar was solid, but he was their #1 for the 3 years he was there, so you should be comparing Mark Ingram and a washed up Gary Clark to Wayne.
Now that I look at the 92-97 receivers I do agree that if Marvin can keep playing strong that Manning will likely have a huge WR advantage when comparing their 9th-14th year of their careers. But even though Marino's peak performance years were early on in his career I'd still take Manning's first 8 over Marinos. Over the past 4 years Manning has a 137 TD to 39 INT. I'd be shocked if anyone in the history of the game has ever come close to throwing that many TDs w/that few INTs. If he stays healthy and continues to perform well a decade from now there won't be any debate about him being the best QB that ever lived let alone the best player of the past 25 years.
It depends on what you mean by perform well. I doubt he'll end his career as the unquestioned best QB ever or best player of the last 25 years. There's debate over whether he's been the best player and best QB in most of the years he's played.
geschinger
07-07-2007, 12:12 AM
It depends on what you mean by perform well. I doubt he'll end his career as the unquestioned best QB ever or best player of the last 25 years. There's debate over whether he's been the best player and best QB in most of the years he's played.
MVP 2 years in a row and he finished 2nd and 3rd the past two years even though 2006 may have been his best year considering the circumstances.
Every year there is a player or two in the discussion of whom the best player in the game is but Manning is the only constant from year to year. Since he has kicked his game up a notch in 2003 he has separated himself from everyone else.
And I fully expect him to be even more productive next year. He'll have a 3rd WR who is a threat and he'll have a lot more possesions to work with than he had this past season witha historically bad defense.
MVP 2 years in a row and he finished 2nd and 3rd the past two years even though 2006 may have been his best year considering the circumstances.
Every year there is a player or two in the discussion of whom the best player in the game is but Manning is the only constant from year to year. Since he has kicked his game up a notch in 2003 he has separated himself from everyone else.
And I fully expect him to be even more productive next year. He'll have a 3rd WR who is a threat and he'll have a lot more possesions to work with than he had this past season witha historically bad defense.
Yes, he's great, but to say there won't be a debate when his career is over if he stays healthy and preforms well is over the top imo.
And Brady has been in the discussion consistently with Manning. LT has been for the most part over the last few years, Larry Johnson the last 2 years, Priest between 2001-2003, Faulk until 2001, and Moss was through 2003.
I think Peyton will likely go down as one of the all time greats, but I doubt that he will be considered the best without debate. For QB's, Elway, Montana, Unitas, Graham, and maybe Brady will likely still have cases that can be made for them. Otherwise, Jim Brown, Jerry Rice, and maybe even LT among others will be guys that are discussed as the all time best. Of course there's some defensive players that should be mentioned as well, but they don't get as much respect in this type of conversation.
geschinger
07-07-2007, 01:02 AM
Yes, he's great, but to say there won't be a debate when his career is over if he stays healthy and preforms well is over the top imo.
And Brady has been in the discussion consistently with Manning. LT has been for the most part over the last few years, Larry Johnson the last 2 years, Priest between 2001-2003, Faulk until 2001, and Moss was through 2003.
I think Peyton will likely go down as one of the all time greats, but I doubt that he will be considered the best without debate. For QB's, Elway, Montana, Unitas, Graham, and maybe Brady will likely still have cases that can be made for them. Otherwise, Jim Brown, Jerry Rice, and maybe even LT among others will be guys that are discussed as the all time best. Of course there's some defensive players that should be mentioned as well, but they don't get as much respect in this type of conversation.
Of course it all depends on how he continues to perform. If he stays healthy and plays for another 8 years or so with 4 or 5 years like the previous four he'll own every meaningful passing record. If he can compliment that with another ring or two he will have a resume that I don't think anyone would be able to match.
Of course it all depends on how he continues to perform. If he stays healthy and plays for another 8 years or so with 4 or 5 years like the previous four he'll own every meaningful passing record. If he can compliment that with another ring or two he will have a resume that I don't think anyone would be able to match.
4 or 5 more years like the previous 4 is unlikely considering his age. I would expect 2 more years like the last 4, then a decline. I think there's a good chance he doesn't get the all time yards record, he'll probably get the td record if he stays relatively healthy. But again, I think you have to consider era, teammates, offensive system, and even the dome in all this. Football is a sport where stats don't settle arguments nearly as well as they do in baseball or basketball imo.
Even if Manning becomes the best QB ever, I wouldn't dismiss Brown when it comes to best player ever.
geschinger
07-07-2007, 01:35 AM
4 or 5 more years like the previous 4 is unlikely considering his age. I would expect 2 more years like the last 4, then a decline. I think there's a good chance he doesn't get the all time yards record, he'll probably get the td record if he stays relatively healthy. But again, I think you have to consider era, teammates, offensive system, and even the dome in all this. Football is a sport where stats don't settle arguments nearly as well as they do in baseball or basketball imo.
Even if Manning becomes the best QB ever, I wouldn't dismiss Brown when it comes to best player ever.
He said at the Super Bowl that he considered his career half over. If he plays another 8 or 9 years and stays healthy I don't think he'll have any problem reaching the yardage record as I would be totally shocked if he isn't up to 50,000 yards by the end 2009. Even if he declines quite a bit I don't think he'd have any problems tacking on another 12,000 yards over another 5-6 years.
He said at the Super Bowl that he considered his career half over. If he plays another 8 or 9 years and stays healthy I don't think he'll have any problem reaching the yardage record as I would be totally shocked if he isn't up to 50,000 yards by the end 2009. Even if he declines quite a bit I don't think he'd have any problems tacking on another 12,000 yards over another 5-6 years.
Well he is likely to miss some time. I think it will be close.
ccbird
07-07-2007, 05:29 AM
Now that we're down to 11 remaining, I think we can count out Allen, Fouts and Harrison. Just for fun, here's my final 11 in order.
11) Ronnie Lott
10) Tom Brady
9) Barry Sanders
8) Reggie White
7) Emmitt Smith
6) Joe Montana
5) Lawrence Taylor
4) Walter Payton
3) Dan Marino
2) Jerry Rice
1) John Elway
Good chance you have nailed all 11 left. I got LT and Rice at 1 and 2. I also think Barry will be ahead of Emmitt and Montana ahead of Marino and maybe Elway.
11. Brady
10.Lott
9.Payton
8.Emmitt
7.Marino
6.Sanders
5.White
4.Montana
3.Elway
2.Taylor
1.Rice
Good chance you have nailed all 11 left. I got LT and Rice at 1 and 2. I also think Barry will be ahead of Emmitt and Montana ahead of Marino and maybe Elway.
11. Brady
10.Lott
9.Payton
8.Emmitt
7.Marino
6.Sanders
5.White
4.Montana
3.Elway
2.Taylor
1.Rice
I'd be surprised if Payton ranked that low, although I basically agree with where you have him. Would have Emmitt below him though since I think he's quite overrated.
FourRunJack
07-08-2007, 07:49 PM
4 or 5 more years like the previous 4 is unlikely considering his age. I would expect 2 more years like the last 4, then a decline. I think there's a good chance he doesn't get the all time yards record, he'll probably get the td record if he stays relatively healthy. But again, I think you have to consider era, teammates, offensive system, and even the dome in all this. Football is a sport where stats don't settle arguments nearly as well as they do in baseball or basketball imo.
Even if Manning becomes the best QB ever, I wouldn't dismiss Brown when it comes to best player ever.
How can you say that? He's never missed a game in his career and show no signs of slowing down. And he doesn't take many hits, so his body obviously isn't all beat up. He's only 31, the passing records are his.
FourRunJack
07-08-2007, 07:50 PM
I think Joe Montana is going to be #1
FourRunJack
07-08-2007, 07:52 PM
I'd be surprised if Payton ranked that low, although I basically agree with where you have him. Would have Emmitt below him though since I think he's quite overrated.
I think Payton will be the tops for the rbs and Emmitt shouldn't even be in the top three.
ccbird
07-08-2007, 10:16 PM
I think Payton will be the tops for the rbs and Emmitt shouldn't even be in the top three.
IMO, Sanders> Payton> Smith as far as best running back purely on talent. But I'm guessing Smith ahead of Payton on this list because of the rushing record, more TD's and a few more SB rings.
How can you say that? He's never missed a game in his career and show no signs of slowing down. And he doesn't take many hits, so his body obviously isn't all beat up. He's only 31, the passing records are his.
Because he is exiting his peak years, and that usually means a drop in performance. And I would still bet on him missing some time before his career ends, it's extremely rare for a QB to make it through his whole career without missing some time.
geschinger
07-08-2007, 11:17 PM
Because he is exiting his peak years, and that usually means a drop in performance. And I would still bet on him missing some time before his career ends, it's extremely rare for a QB to make it through his whole career without missing some time.
While you are probably right, odds are something will happen at some point to make him miss some time there aren't a lot of QBs who have played this game who are as tough as Peyton. I'll never forget the game where he was bloodied up and had his jaw broken and it pissed him off that he had to miss one play.
While you are probably right, odds are something will happen at some point to make him miss some time there aren't a lot of QBs who have played this game who are as tough as Peyton. I'll never forget the game where he was bloodied up and had his jaw broken and it pissed him off that he had to miss one play.
Well McNair is probably just as tough as Peyton, and we know his injury history.
geschinger
07-09-2007, 12:23 AM
Well McNair is probably just as tough as Peyton, and we know his injury history.
The Warrior, Steve McHurt is not comparable to Manning in any way shape or form when it comes to durability. Peyton is tough like Mr. Favre is tough. Manning would play through 95% of the stuff that Steve sits with.
The Warrior, Steve McHurt is not comparable to Manning in any way shape or form when it comes to durability. Peyton is tough like Mr. Favre is tough. Manning would play through 95% of the stuff that Steve sits with.
I didn't say they were comparable in terms of durability, I said they were comparable when it comes to toughness, and I'll stick by this since everyone says Steve is very tough.
geschinger
07-09-2007, 12:47 AM
I didn't say they were comparable in terms of durability, I said they were comparable when it comes to toughness, and I'll stick by this since everyone says Steve is very tough.
You got me there, he is the Warrior, tough as nails.
square634
07-09-2007, 12:55 AM
Manning would play through 95% of the stuff that Steve sits with.
Really? I don't believe that for a second. Put Manning behind some of the offensive lines the Titans or Ravens have had in years past (think Grbac era) and he would be toast
geschinger
07-09-2007, 01:20 AM
Really? I don't believe that for a second. Put Manning behind some of the offensive lines the Titans or Ravens have had in years past (think Grbac era) and he would be toast
Titans had some decent OLs during McNair's years. Put McNair with his penchant for holding on to the ball too long behind the Colts OL and he'd get hit and hurt just as often if not more.
But isn't what I was trying to say... I'm talking about the plays/hits that the Warrior find a way to get hurt from. I'm usually amazed on how innocuous the hits/plays are that seem to knock McNair off the field.
Titans had some decent OLs during McNair's years. Put McNair with his penchant for holding on to the ball too long behind the Colts OL and he'd get hit and hurt just as often if not more.
But isn't what I was trying to say... I'm talking about the plays/hits that the Warrior find a way to get hurt from. I'm usually amazed on how innocuous the hits/plays are that seem to knock McNair off the field.
That may be so, but saying Manning could play through 95% of the injuries he's had is absurd imo.
geschinger
07-09-2007, 09:28 AM
That may be so, but saying Manning could play through 95% of the injuries he's had is absurd imo.
You are correct, it was a little (or a lot) bit of hyperbole. Once the injury has been obtained its a completely different ballgame. Although I don't think Manning is as fragile as McNair and most of the hits that have sidelined McNair I don't believe would have sidelined Manning.
FourRunJack
07-09-2007, 10:12 PM
Because he is exiting his peak years, and that usually means a drop in performance. And I would still bet on him missing some time before his career ends, it's extremely rare for a QB to make it through his whole career without missing some time.
What did Elway and Marino do in there final years? Peyton is on that level. And one more time, he doesn't get hit often. He gets rid of the ball very fast. Behind his line and with his weapons on offense, not to mention the front office doing a good job every year, I expect him to have at least four more years of dominance .
Barry Sanders at #10. I would have ranked him a bit higher but I do agree with their statement that he left you wanting more.
Brady is #9.
Montana, Emmitt, Payton, Elway, Rice, White, LT (original one), Lott most likely left to come.
ccbird
07-26-2007, 06:54 AM
Montana as #1 is wrong. I almost said a joke but I can at least understand why someone would think he is #1 because of the rings and because he played the QB position. However, Rice and LT were dominating their positions statistically and every other way. Montana was no better than Marino or Elway but he happened to play on the right team in the right system which apparently has overrated him drastically.
Montana as #1 is wrong. I almost said a joke but I can at least understand why someone would think he is #1 because of the rings and because he played the QB position. However, Rice and LT were dominating their positions statistically and every other way. Montana was no better than Marino or Elway but he happened to play on the right team in the right system which apparently has overrated him drastically.
I agree. What team one plays for, especially a QB, RB, or WR, makes a huge difference.
tennOsfan
07-26-2007, 12:45 PM
I'm only now seeing this list.
1. I'd be willing to put Tomlinson in the Top 10 right now. He's phenomenal.
2. Bradshaw doesn't belong, even if you take his pre-82 career into account. He benefitted from having one of the strongest supporting casts ever. He was great, but not at the exclusion of other players (Bruce Smith, perhaps).
3. Payton is where he needs to be as the top RB. It's not all about running ability. He was outstanding at everything he did. He provided the whole package. And his numbers were compiled on a lot of really sorry Bears teams (how many times did Emmitt Smith have to run for his life behind the line of scrimmage?). Tomlinson is the only RB I've seen since that compares.
4. Montana was great, but I'd start my franchise with Lawrence Taylor or Reggie White any day. I'd place either of those two players at the top of the rankings.
5. One wide receiver on the list? Like them or not, Randy Moss and Terrell Owens have had their years of being virtually unstoppable. And Marvin Harrison is quietly compiling one of the best careers ever for a WR.
6. Singletary is overrated. He was great, but who wouldn't rather have Urlacher?
Birds of B'more
07-31-2007, 04:07 AM
Montana as #1 is wrong. I almost said a joke but I can at least understand why someone would think he is #1 because of the rings and because he played the QB position. However, Rice and LT were dominating their positions statistically and every other way. Montana was no better than Marino or Elway but he happened to play on the right team in the right system which apparently has overrated him drastically.
I agree with everything you said. With the passing yesterday of Bill Walsh, and in reading several columns on the impact he had on the game, I thought about this thread and wondered if we would even be having this discussion about Montana had he not played under Walsh in his system.........and my response was, with no disrespect meant to Montana, "Nope."
geschinger
07-31-2007, 07:29 AM
I agree with everything you said. With the passing yesterday of Bill Walsh, and in reading several columns on the impact he had on the game, I thought about this thread and wondered if we would even be having this discussion about Montana had he not played under Walsh in his system.........and my response was, with no disrespect meant to Montana, "Nope."
Montana and Rice definately benefited significantly from the system that Walsh developed. But when comparing players you really can't take that out of the equation. There are a lot of players on the list who wouldn't be nearly as highly ranked or on the list at all had they played their careers in a different place.
Montana and Rice definately benefited significantly from the system that Walsh developed. But when comparing players you really can't take that out of the equation. There are a lot of players on the list who wouldn't be nearly as highly ranked or on the list at all had they played their careers in a different place.
I think it should be considered though.
Sports Guy
07-31-2007, 10:37 AM
Rice and Montana at 1 and 2 seem fine to me.
I think Barry Sanders should have been higher.
geschinger
07-31-2007, 10:59 AM
I think it should be considered though.
Maybe, but from looking at the list as a whole it is clear that they didn't.
Here's my list:
Rice
LT
Elway
White
Payton
Montana
Barry Sanders
Deion
Lott
Young
Manning
Faulk
Munoz
Bruce Smith
Emmitt Smith
Harrison
Favre
Woodson
Singletary
Lewis
Tomlinson
Brady
B. Matthews
C. Carter
Moss
I was considering a bunch of offensive lineman for the end, but couldn't really pick, so many good choices. Guys like Ogden, Pace, McDaniel, Jones, Roaf, Allen, Shields, Webster, etc.
DT is the only position other than TE and FB that I don't have represented, but couldn't really think of anyone that warrants being in the top 25.
As far as TE goes, Gonzalez and Sharpe both are close imo.
Birds of B'more
08-01-2007, 04:10 AM
I was considering a bunch of offensive lineman for the end, but couldn't really pick, so many good choices. Guys like Ogden, Pace, McDaniel, Jones, Roaf, Allen, Shields, Webster, etc.
DT is the only position other than TE and FB that I don't have represented, but couldn't really think of anyone that warrants being in the top 25.
As far as TE goes, Gonzalez and Sharpe both are close imo.
You left out one of the best O-linemen ever to play the game who, like Bradshaw, just barely fell within the timeframe to make this list..........John Hannah.
As for the DT position, Randy White, Warren Sapp, and Dan Hampton are probably the best at that position whose career encompassed at least part of the past 25 years.........and I don't think I'd put either of them on the list.
And I'd be remiss if I didn't remember the late Bill Walsh by saying that he would be, beyond a doubt, the best NFL coach of the past 25 years.
TommyD4207
08-01-2007, 06:07 PM
Manning has nowhere near the talent around him that Marino had in his early years. Marino didn't make everyone else around him better to the extent that Manning does. Look at players who have had the opportunity to play with Manning and elsewhere and you'll see a huge disparity in their productivity.
This really couldn't be further from the truth.
Harrison is a top 5 all-time receiver. Wayne will probably be top 25 by the time he's done.
Harrison (http://profootballreference.com/players/HarrMa00.htm)
Wayne (http://profootballreference.com/players/WaynRe00.htm)
Clayton and Duper aren't even in the same stratosphere.
Clayton (http://profootballreference.com/players/ClayMa00.htm)
Duper (http://profootballreference.com/players/DupeMa00.htm)
Also, you neglect to mention that Marino had a 1000 yard rusher only once, and Manning has had all-time greats like Marshall Faulk and Edgerrin James.
Marino's Leading RBs:
Andra Franklin (http://profootballreference.com/players/FranAn00.htm)
Woody Bennett (http://profootballreference.com/players/BennWo00.htm)
Tony Nathan (http://profootballreference.com/teams/mia1985.htm)
Lorenzo Hampton (http://profootballreference.com/players/HampLo00.htm)
Troy Stradford (http://profootballreference.com/players/StraTr00.htm)
Sammie Smith (http://profootballreference.com/players/SmitSa00.htm)
Mark Higgs (http://profootballreference.com/players/HiggMa00.htm)
Bernie Parmalee (http://profootballreference.com/players/ParmBe00.htm)
Karim Abdul (Jabbar) (http://profootballreference.com/players/AbduKa00.htm)
Manning's Leading RBs:
Marshall Faulk (http://profootballreference.com/players/FaulMa00.htm)
Edgerrin James (http://profootballreference.com/players/JameEd00.htm)
Dominic Rhodes (http://profootballreference.com/players/RhodDo00.htm)
Joe Addai (http://profootballreference.com/players/AddaJo00.htm)
So, Manning has never NOT had a 1000 yd rusher with him, Marino did ONCE in his whole career. Also, comparing the Marks Brothers to Wayne and Harrison isn't much of a comparison. Wayne and Harrison blow them out of the water. Manning has had much more talent to work with than Marino ever did.
TommyD4207
08-01-2007, 06:10 PM
You are assuming that after the Marks departed Marino only had chopped liver to work with. He had some decent WR come in afterwards. A guy like Irving Fryar had some very nice years with productivity that compares favorably with the kind of numbers Wayne puts up. Manning and the Colts are lucky though that both Wayne/Harrison came in around the same time as Manning did and a large part of their careers / prime overlap nicely.
Fryar was also well past his prime when he played for Miami.
geschinger
08-01-2007, 09:57 PM
So, Manning has never NOT had a 1000 yd rusher with him, Marino did ONCE in his whole career.
Is it the 1,000 yd rusher that makes Manning or is it Manning that makes the 1,000 rusher?
Look at James pre and post Manning.
When James got hurt a few years back look at the numbers of an undrafted free agent who stepped in (D.Rhodes).
Last year look at the results with a raw rookie who wasn't even a 1,000 yd back in college.
Manning's dedication to the craft - his superb ball handling skills and play action fakes give his running backs advantages that those who played behind Marino could only dream of.
square634
08-01-2007, 10:18 PM
I think for running backs it's even more about the O-line. James switched to Arizona's offensive line as well. Look at Elvis Grbac and Priest Holmes pre and post Chiefs O-line. Look at almost any Broncos RB in the past 8 years pre and post Broncos O-line. The Colts' O-line is the main reason I think Manning is overrated. He's obviously still great, but overrated IMO.
Is it the 1,000 yd rusher that makes Manning or is it Manning that makes the 1,000 rusher?
Look at James pre and post Manning.
When James got hurt a few years back look at the numbers of an undrafted free agent who stepped in (D.Rhodes).
Last year look at the results with a raw rookie who wasn't even a 1,000 yd back in college.
Manning's dedication to the craft - his superb ball handling skills and play action fakes give his running backs advantages that those who played behind Marino could only dream of.
Being on a team with an awful O-line was the biggest reason for James' poor season. Manning did not make him at all, he is a very talented back. Of course, having Manning, Harrison, Wayne, and a good OL helped him a lot, but you can put James in that list and say the same about Manning.
BTW, how did Manning do in 2001 with Rhodes as the starter? How did the Colts do?
geschinger
08-01-2007, 11:14 PM
Being on a team with an awful O-line was the biggest reason for James' poor season. Manning did not make him at all, he is a very talented back. Of course, having Manning, Harrison, Wayne, and a good OL helped him a lot, but you can put James in that list and say the same about Manning.
BTW, how did Manning do in 2001 with Rhodes as the starter? How did the Colts do?
He is a very talented back, I don't mean to imply otherwise. 1,000 yards behind the Phx OL is a decent effort. When he was with the Colts, his blocking was the best I've seen from a RB. But when it came to production running the ball, the Colts did not miss a beat when he wasn't in there.
As for Manning in 2001, he was ok and the Colts were awufl. But unless James played defense his loss had little to do with the struggles. Take a look at the points allowed by the Colts that year. I'm sure you'd agree that it is hard (impossible?) to be successful w/a defense that awful. When your defense is giving up 30+ a game it puts a QB in a position where they have to force things and his INTs were up. Everything else was relatively consistent with every other year.
The Colts OL is probably overrated. We'll have to see how they do w/Glenn but in recent years they've had enormous turnover and not missed a beat. And it's not like they are like the Ravens using 1st day picks to stock up on OL. All the guys are 2nd day picks or undrafted players. They run the stretch play extremly well. But give the Colts a 3rd and short and the Colts OL gets blown up. They are in the bottom 3rd of the league every year when it comes to converting in those situations.
The one area from which Manning and the Colts have benefited greatly that is underrated is their offensive coaching staff. Tom Moore and Howard Mudd are as good as it gets. And much like I wasn't all that worried about the loss of James I am not worried at all about the loss of Glenn. Mudd will have his replacement coached up and by about 1/4th or halfway through the season the loss of Glenn will be unnoticeable.
You say Manning didn't play bad, and that's true, but it was his worst year besides his rookie season.
As far as production goes, yeah, they'd didn't miss a beat, but I'd guess that defenses game planned for the Colts differently with Rhodes in there instead of James.
Bottomline, is Manning has not made the RB's 1,000 yard rusher's. He's had very good backs, and of course they've been helped by being in that offense, which can be said for all the skill players. Manning has had much better RB's than Marino had.
geschinger
08-01-2007, 11:40 PM
You say Manning didn't play bad, and that's true, but it was his worst year besides his rookie season.
As far as production goes, yeah, they'd didn't miss a beat, but I'd guess that defenses game planned for the Colts differently with Rhodes in there instead of James.
Yep, I agree. But I contend it has more to do w/trying keep up w/a defense giving up 30+ points a game than it did w/the loss of James.
Bottomline, is Manning has not made the RB's 1,000 yard rusher's. He's had very good backs, and of course they've been helped by being in that offense, which can be said for all the skill players. Manning has had much better RB's than Marino had.
I agree w/that but I don't think you can ignore that Manning does a lot more to help his RBs have success than Marino ever did. I grew up forced to watch the Dolphins before the birth of NFL Sunday Ticket and with Marino everyone in the stadium not just the defense knew when he was handing the ball off and when he was going to throw it. With Manning - especially in the stretch play defenses have no idea what it is until he either hands the ball off or fakes it. I think you are underestimating how much of an advantage that is for backs who have the luxury to play w/Manning.
Yep, I agree. But I contend it has more to do w/trying keep up w/a defense giving up 30+ points a game than it did w/the loss of James.
I agree w/that but I don't think you can ignore that Manning does a lot more to help his RBs have success than Marino ever did. I grew up forced to watch the Dolphins before the birth of NFL Sunday Ticket and with Marino everyone in the stadium not just the defense knew when he was handing the ball off and when he was going to throw it. With Manning - especially in the stretch play defenses have no idea what it is until he either hands the ball off or fakes it. That is a huge advantage for backs who have the luxury to play w/Manning.
I agree with the first part, although all those picks had to hurt the points allowed.
Ok, Manning helps with play action more than Marino, I'll take your word on that one as I've never heard that about Dan.
geschinger
08-01-2007, 11:58 PM
I agree with the first part, although all those picks had to hurt the points allowed.
It's a situation of "what came first, the chicken or the egg?"
The INTs did effect the points allowed including a couple of Manning INTs returned for TDs. But I think you'd find that most of the INTs came when the Colts were down multiple scores.
Ok, Manning helps with play action more than Marino, I'll take your word on that one as I've never heard that about Dan.
If you are curious, from a Sporting News article (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_51_224/ai_68504399/pg_2) from back in 2000 after the Dolphins finally had a good running game:
But it takes more than a tight end to make a running game go.
The party most responsible is ... Dan Marino. Or, rather, the lack of Dan Marino.
With the most prolific passer in NFL history under center, the Dolphins couldn't be expected to be devoted to the run any more than the driver of a Maserati could be expected to be devoted to the speed limit. "If you were the coordinator and had Dan Marino standing back there, in your mind you're thinking, why not let one of the best passers in football history do something with it," Gailey says.
Marino's presence affected preparation, play-calling, personnel packages and blocking schemes. As great as he was, Marino was no friend to the run game, especially in recent years. His lack of mobility made him the worst play-action quarterback in the league. He couldn't even get to the point of the play fake at times.
Now play-action is a staple of the Dolphins offense. So is the bootleg, which Marino never could execute. Now the passes look like runs, and all the protections and routes come off the same looks.
Thanks. They were commenting on him late in his career though, so it doesn't seem like it was an issue during his prime.
geschinger
08-02-2007, 10:57 PM
Thanks. They were commenting on him late in his career though, so it doesn't seem like it was an issue during his prime.
The mobility making him struggle to even get to the play fake is limited to late to his career. The rest would be applicable to him throughout his whole career.
The mobility making him struggle to even get to the play fake is limited to late to his career. The rest would be applicable to him throughout his whole career.
The rest of it is not his fault, and you can say the same about pretty much any great QB.
geschinger
08-02-2007, 11:18 PM
The rest of it is not his fault, and you can say the same about pretty much any great QB.
Whose fault is it that he didn't make more of an effort to be a better at doing things that help out the running game? I know not everyone can be Boomer Esiason or even Manning when it comes to play fakes but Marino was flat out awful to the point that he telegraphed running plays.
Whose fault is it that he didn't make more of an effort to be a better at doing things that help out the running game? I know not everyone can be Boomer Esiason or even Manning when it comes to play fakes but Marino was flat out awful to the point that he telegraphed running plays.
Besides the play action, which isn't part of the rest you speak of, I don't get what your talking about. If you read that blurb you posted, there is nothing besides the play action part that is his fault.
geschinger
08-03-2007, 10:52 AM
Besides the play action, which isn't part of the rest you speak of, I don't get what your talking about. If you read that blurb you posted, there is nothing besides the play action part that is his fault.
Simply stating that he was no friend of the running game pre or post the loss of his mobility. He was strictly a drop back passer who hated to ever turn his back to the LOS. Everyone knew almost immediately after he took the snap when it was going to be a running play which obviously makes things a bit tougher on his RBs. It's no accident that the team that couldn't develop any kind of running game magically developed a good one once he was gone.
Simply stating that he was no friend of the running game pre or post the loss of his mobility. He was strictly a drop back passer who hated to ever turn his back to the LOS. Everyone knew almost immediately after he took the snap when it was going to be a running play which obviously makes things a bit tougher on his RBs. It's no accident that the team that couldn't develop any kind of running game magically developed a good one once he was gone.
Well that blurb you posted restricts his lack of play action ability to late in his career. He may not have been good early in his career, but it seems you're overstating it. The rest of the anti running game is all about the coaches being too tempted to throw a lot due to having such a great QB.
They changed their whole style after he left. And if you really look at the numbers after he left, the running game wasn't good. Unless you consider 3.27 YPA(28th) good, or 22nd in yards good. The next year it was better, but still pretty weak with a 3.82 YPA(24th) and 14th in yards. Then they went back down to 3.52(29th) and 23rd. They became good in 2002, with Ricky Williams. So I don't see any magic there.
Just do me a favor, go here: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/miaindex.htm
And just look at the RB's Marino had. Sure, he didn't help them with the play action nearly as much as Manning does, but that's still a pretty sorry group.
TommyD4207
08-04-2007, 02:39 AM
Is it the 1,000 yd rusher that makes Manning or is it Manning that makes the 1,000 rusher?
Look at James pre and post Manning.
When James got hurt a few years back look at the numbers of an undrafted free agent who stepped in (D.Rhodes).
Last year look at the results with a raw rookie who wasn't even a 1,000 yd back in college.
Manning's dedication to the craft - his superb ball handling skills and play action fakes give his running backs advantages that those who played behind Marino could only dream of.
Sorry, that's a red herring, IMO.
Marshall Faulk was made by Peyton Manning? And SOLELY Peyton Manning? You don't mention Harrison OR Wayne here, and Harrison was an All-Pro along with Faulk before Manning ever got there. You said explicity that Mark Duper and Mark Clayton were more talented than Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne. That's simply not true. Marino had above-average receivers at times in his career, but he made superstars out of receivers like OJ McDuffie, who were marginal at best. He routinely had a bottom quarter defense, an average offensive line at best and one 1000 yd RB in his entire career.
The Colts offensive line has been filled with all-pros for years.
To compare James with the Colts line, and then 1 season with the Cardinals line is nearly impossible.
I understand what you're saying, but I just don't see how you can possibly quantify that, when every stat says that Marino worked with much less in his career.
geschinger
08-04-2007, 11:46 PM
And just look at the RB's Marino had. Sure, he didn't help them with the play action nearly as much as Manning does, but that's still a pretty sorry group.
It is indeed a sorry bunch. The Dolphins addressed the need w/1st round RBs and they all were failures. Maybe they wouldn't have been as bad had they been in better situations in organizations that made running the ball a priority. But maybe Manning is just lucky to have the leagues best executive making decisions for the franchise he is lucky enough to suit up for. I have to admit that the Colts FO and coaching staff are underrated and does give Manning a huge advantage.
geschinger
08-04-2007, 11:53 PM
The Colts offensive line has been filled with all-pros for years.
Who are all these all-pro OL you speak of? Glenn and Saturday have combined to make 5 pro bowls during Manning's 9 years. Marino's LT made the pro bowl (7 years in a row) and he had a HOF center early in his career.
YardBirds13
08-05-2007, 12:20 AM
I can't believe I missed out on a good Marino debate!!!
I am a Dolphins fan. Dan Marino is my favorite all time player. Ever. I fully believe that if you put Marino on those San Fran teams or Denver teams, that they would be just as good if not better than they were.
Simply put, the Dolphins never made the right moves around Dan to allow him to win a SB. Those teams were always good. Dan rarely ever played on a bad team, and that says a lot about him.