NFL Top 100

[obiken]

https://www.nfl.com/100/all-time-team/ Sorry I have a real problem putting Farve in over Brees, Bradshaw, Starr, Griese, or even knucklehead Rodgers! The rest they pretty much got right.

[obiken]

To say that John Randle was a better DT than Tez sorry, he wasnt and we had them both.

[Aseahawkfan]

Favre over all those guys? Horsecrap.

No Tez? Disrespected for being on a bad team his career. I think Suh would eat the lunch of most of those DTs. No Warren Sapp?

I don't know. That's some kind of trying to be clever list.

[RiverDog]

I don't like engaging in these discussions. The game has changed so much over the decades that it's truly an apples vs. oranges comparison to contrast a player like Merlin Olsen with Reggie White. Both were great players for the era they played in and I see no point in elevating one above the other.

As far as Tez being omitted, it's par for the course. He played for losing teams for nearly all of his career and not for a team named the Cowboys or Steelers.

[obiken]

I don't like engaging in these discussions. The game has changed so much over the decades that it's truly an apples vs. oranges comparison to contrast a player like Merlin Olsen with Reggie White. Both were great players for the era they played in and I see no point in elevating one above the other.

As far as Tez being omitted, it's par for the course. He played for losing teams for nearly all of his career and not for a team named the Cowboys or Steelers.

Lewis, White, and Taylor were the best in my view.

[NorthHawk]

It shows how subjective these types of lists can be even if it's a small panel of voters.
And I thought that Brady was the unequivocal GOAT! How does he end up #2!! It's why I've said all along that it can't be determined because of the different game today than previous. And don't get me started on Favre.
Could Brady play in that era of Otto Graham? I doubt it because the QB was much more of a runner and I doubt that Graham could play in this era as well. The only positions it seems to me that haven't changed much for comparative lists are RB, LB, and along the LoS, but even then the game has changed so much that there are many different responsibilities for those positions. WRs area a completely different position today than way back when and even when Largent played because the rules have changed so much and comparisons are even more difficult.
Like RD said, they were all great players of their era and some could play and maybe dominate today, like Deacon Jones and Reggie White but that's my own subjective view and I could be wrong.

[tarlhawk]

These lists are sometimes fun to view but failing to be seen as a statement they are a slanted opinion without a very narrow window of qualifying attributes. Are we talking of the merits of transforming the way the NFL has been viewed through its highs and lows...what individuals truly stand out that have made the NFL such a draw for fan viewership compared to Baseball? Is being selected for the Hall of Fame a minimum standard...or merely a consideration? Does polling of NFL Beat Writers play a role? From a fan view point I'd rather see various fan lists of who the top 25 Seahawks were with loose standards...who made you proud to be a Seahawk fan? The older we are the bigger the pool of Seahawk players seem available for consideration.

Seahawk trivia:
From quora.com : Why are the Seahawks called the Seahawks? The name Seattle Seahawks (“Seahawk” is another name for Osprey) was selected on June 17, 1975, after a public naming contest which drew more than 20,000 entries and over 1,700 names.

[RiverDog]

It shows how subjective these types of lists can be even if it's a small panel of voters.
And I thought that Brady was the unequivocal GOAT! How does he end up #2!! It's why I've said all along that it can't be determined because of the different game today than previous. And don't get me started on Favre.
Could Brady play in that era of Otto Graham? I doubt it because the QB was much more of a runner and I doubt that Graham could play in this era as well. The only positions it seems to me that haven't changed much for comparative lists are RB, LB, and along the LoS, but even then the game has changed so much that there are many different responsibilities for those positions. WRs area a completely different position today than way back when and even when Largent played because the rules have changed so much and comparisons are even more difficult.
Like RD said, they were all great players of their era and some could play and maybe dominate today, like Deacon Jones and Reggie White but that's my own subjective view and I could be wrong.

We also have to keep in mind that there was a huge difference in the way players trained. Nowadays, players can train year round, hire personal trainers and coaches, etc. Back in Otto Graham's day, players had to take regular jobs in the offseason in order to pay the bills. George Blanda, a league MVP, drove a beer truck for a distributor in the offseason. Many good athletes chose another career rather than attempt to pursue football due to economic considerations.

Then there's the race factor. Although blacks weren't banned, they didn't have the opportunity they have today as most players came from the colleges, and not many blacks could afford to attend. Plus a lot of the colleges in the south remained segregated well into the 60's. And that's before we consider the bias that existed about blacks not being smart enough to play quarterback.

There's way too many variables to allow for any kind of credible ranking of players that spans as many generations as this one does.

[RiverDog]

These lists are sometimes fun to view but failing to be seen as a statement they are a slanted opinion without a very narrow window of qualifying attributes. Are we talking of the merits of transforming the way the NFL has been viewed through its highs and lows...what individuals truly stand out that have made the NFL such a draw for fan viewership compared to Baseball? Is being selected for the Hall of Fame a minimum standard...or merely a consideration? Does polling of NFL Beat Writers play a role? From a fan view point I'd rather see various fan lists of who the top 25 Seahawks were with loose standards...who made you proud to be a Seahawk fan? The older we are the bigger the pool of Seahawk players seem available for consideration.

Good points.

As far as my favorite Seahawks, Steve Largent and Walter Jones top my list. I actually got to shake hands with Big Walt once. I also liked Dave Krieg. Russell Wilson was one of my top favorites, although obviously his alure has diminished somewhat, but I still consider him a favorite. The expansion Seahawks had a player they got from the Vikings named Bob Luurtsema, a.k.a. "Benchwarmer Bob", who was a hoot to listen to.

Seahawk trivia:
From quora.com : Why are the Seahawks called the Seahawks? The name Seattle Seahawks (“Seahawk” is another name for Osprey) was selected on June 17, 1975, after a public naming contest which drew more than 20,000 entries and over 1,700 names.

And I remember the naming process. I think "Kings" was one of the leading names as it seemed to fit with the "Kingdome".

I'm not sure if it came before or after our Seahawks were named, but the Navy once had a helicopter nicknamed "Seahawk".

[tarlhawk]

Good points.

As far as my favorite Seahawks, Steve Largent and Walter Jones top my list. I actually got to shake hands with Big Walt once. I also liked Dave Krieg. Russell Wilson was one of my top favorites, although obviously his alure has diminished somewhat, but I still consider him a favorite. The expansion Seahawks had a player they got from the Vikings named Bob Luurtsema, a.k.a. "Benchwarmer Bob", who was a hoot to listen to.

And I remember the naming process. I think "Kings" was one of the leading names as it seemed to fit with the "Kingdome".

I'm not sure if it came before or after our Seahawks were named, but the Navy once had a helicopter nicknamed "Seahawk".

From Wikipedia:

The nickname Seahawks was selected on June 17, 1975 after a public naming contest which drew more than 20,000 entries and over 1,700 different names. 151 people had submitted the name in the list such as Clark McMillan and Hazel Cooke (who each received a framed piece of literature for their efforts).[10][11] Five names were selected as finalists: Sockeyes, Mariners, Olympics, Evergreens, and Seahawks. Nordstrom and his group telephoned Rozelle and Jim Kensil (league executive director) for a response on the names, and their favorable reaction to Seahawks led to the use of the name for the team. The nickname was previously used by the All-America Football Conference Miami Seahawks.

[NorthHawk]

It rolls off the tongue pretty well as would Seattle Sockeyes, but how aggressive is a fish relative to a raptor?
It was probably the best name to choose in the end.

[Old but Slow]

It is impossible to make comparisons over such a long history. When I first started watching, offensive linemen were usually 240 to 260, and there were very few players over 300 pounds. Bingo Bingaman was about 330 or so, and was considered a freak. That difference alone throws comparisons out the window.

Interestingly, as River alluded, the pay was different too. There were predictions of the end of pro football when a player got a $100k contract for the first time. A lot of those old vets were crippled up from their playing and then had nothing to show for it. As I remember, many salaries were under $10,000. The players association apparently helped them out some.

[tarlhawk]

I definitely wouldn't rank them in a pecking order just list them as 100 names either by position or alphabetically. Then a fan could see if their favorite player "made the list".

[RiverDog]

I definitely wouldn't rank them in a pecking order just list them as 100 names either by position or alphabetically. Then a fan could see if their favorite player "made the list".

The lists are completely arbitrary and most of the times represent just one person's opinion. They're just discussion points, and nothing more. There may also be ulterior motives in establishing them, as the goal isn't to create a fair list, it's to get the most 'hits', which represents advertising revenue. I put very little weight in them.

One of the things I think goes missing on these all time lists is the impact a certain player had on their game. When they came out with their all time athlete and named Michael Jordan as the greatest over Babe Ruth, I don't think fair consideration was given to how each player changed their game. Before Babe Ruth, the season record for home runs was 27, and that was set 36 years earlier. In the first season Ruth became a full-time hitter, he hit 54 home runs, doubling the previous total and changing forever the way the game was played.

[Old but Slow]

Many great players were done before most of the writers were alive. Those you have seen have more meaning than those you have just heard of. It is easy to include the big names like Red Grange and the like, but what about Elroy Hirsch, Hugh McIlhenny, and Don Berry? Not that those 3 would necessarily be on the list, but at least talked about.

River, I liked the Babe Ruth comment. He was a dominant pitcher before he became an outfielder to take advantage of his power.

[RiverDog]

Many great players were done before most of the writers were alive. Those you have seen have more meaning than those you have just heard of. It is easy to include the big names like Red Grange and the like, but what about Elroy Hirsch, Hugh McIlhenny, and Don Berry? Not that those 3 would necessarily be on the list, but at least talked about.

River, I liked the Babe Ruth comment. He was a dominant pitcher before he became an outfielder to take advantage of his power.

Yuppers on Ruth. In the same year that Roger Maris broke Ruth's season record for most home runs, Whitey Ford broke his record for most consecutive scoreless innings (29 2/3) pitched in the World Series. A significant pitching record that lasted 40+ years and a significant hitting record that lasted 35 years. If you're judging players by their peers as IMO they should, there was more of a difference between Ruth and his contemporaries than any other athlete whom I've ever seen or heard of.