Re: NFL Top 100
 

The list is seriously flawed, but who cares it's just for entertainment purposes.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

I mean breakout season in 2010*. But yes, it's helps pass time.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

Orakpo can't be on there, yet, because he doesn't have a well developed skill outside of rushing the passer. But that never really stopped everyone from jumping on DeMarcus Ware back when he was an every down rushing specialist. Fletcher, unquestionably, should have been on the list, but the same players who vote for the pro bowl voted for this list, so there you go.

Also, Brandon Lloyd is on a "Top 100" list specifically for being a football player. Thats...not good.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

I mean, most 3-4 outside linebacker spend most of their time rushing the passer. On NFL Network someone said they asked Wade Phillips about turning Mario Williams into an outside linebacker and what about his coverage skills, and Phillips said Ware dropped into coverage on purpose maybe all of six times. Now maybe he's exaggerating, but still, if you're watching D-Ware, chances are he's coming after the quarterback.

That's true of most outside linebackers, and I think that even the best ones (Woodley, Harrison, Suggs, Tamba Hali, Clay Mathews) can be liabilities in coverage. Some are better than others, but really, you get those kinds of guys to have them rush the quarterback.

As for Fletcher, the guy is one of the most unappreciated linebackers in the league. Dhani Jones actually put Fletcher on his top 10 list of best linebackers in the league on NFL Total Access, and Fran Charles goes "Really? London Fletcher"?

YES, REALLY, LONDON FLETCHER. Guy does nothing but produce year after year after year and never gets any credit.

[QUOTE=NLC1054;808651]I mean, most 3-4 outside linebacker spend most of their time rushing the passer. On NFL Network someone said they asked Wade Phillips about turning Mario Williams into an outside linebacker and what about his coverage skills, and Phillips said Ware dropped into coverage on purpose maybe all of six times. Now maybe he's exaggerating, but still, if you're watching D-Ware, chances are he's coming after the quarterback.

That's true of most outside linebackers, and I think that even the best ones (Woodley, Harrison, Suggs, Tamba Hali, Clay Mathews) can be liabilities in coverage. Some are better than others, but really, you get those kinds of guys to have them rush the quarterback.

As for Fletcher, the guy is one of the most unappreciated linebackers in the league. Dhani Jones actually put Fletcher on his top 10 list of best linebackers in the league on NFL Total Access, and Fran Charles goes "Really? London Fletcher"?

YES, REALLY, LONDON FLETCHER. Guy does nothing but produce year after year after year and never gets any credit.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

I could easily see Rak in the top 100, and certainly Fletcher. Neither are getting any respect from this list.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

London Fletcher may be the most underrated player in NFL history

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8208160d/article/comedy-of-errors-whats-funny-and-wrong-with-top-100]NFL.com news: Comedy of errors: What's funny -- and wrong -- with 'Top 100'[/url]

Re: NFL Top 100
 

10. Peppers
9. Brees
8. Revis
7. A.J
6. Troy P
5. Reed
4. R. Lewis
3. A.D
2. Manning
1. Brady.

I'd say pretty good

Re: NFL Top 100
 

Brees should have been higher, and I'd take Manning #1 any day. Peppers top 10?

Overall the list was kind of a joke.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[quote=Mattyk;809358]Brees should have been higher, and I'd take Manning #1 any day. Peppers top 10?

Overall the list was kind of a joke.[/quote]

Peppers should have been lower than Ware and I'd go Brady or Manning at 1. I still don't see how Orakpo was left off and I don't know how B Lloyd was ahead of Miles Austin

Re: NFL Top 100
 

Yeah needless to say the list was very questionable. They should have had the media or the fans put the list together, it might have been a bit more accurate.

Big Ben at #41? Rivers at #26? Mario Williams #71?

There's just so many that jump off the list as laughable.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[quote=Mattyk;809379]Yeah needless to say the list was very questionable. They should have had the media or the fans put the list together, it might have been a bit more accurate.

Big Ben at #41? Rivers at #26? Mario Williams #71?

[B]There's just so many that jump off the list as laughable.[/B][/quote]


I think sometimes they do that to create a buzz.

No matter what list is drawn up everyone is not going to agree on it.

These type of list are dumb but are even dumber when trying to score or rank football players. Football is such a team sport that so many variables come into play when assessing a players overall skill level. Is he good becasue he has a lot of talent? Or is he good because of the guys around him?

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[quote=Mattyk;809379]Yeah needless to say the list was very questionable. They should have had the media or the fans put the list together, it might have been a bit more accurate.

Big Ben at #41? Rivers at #26? Mario Williams #71?

There's just so many that jump off the list as laughable.[/quote]


Yeah Williams is a freak and ranked 71 was a joke. Rivers is a top 6 QB and Big Ben is a total winner. Then I think Revis was ranked lower than he should b.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

No Flecther and Orakpo is a shame. Really.......this whole list is a joke. The NFL is just trying to pass time until the lockout is over. They should do the top 100 worst NFL players now.....I'm sure they'd be a ton of skins on that list. We get no respect

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[quote=SOUL-SKINS;809388]No Flecther and Orakpo is a shame. Really.......this whole list is a joke. The NFL is just trying to pass time until the lockout is over. They should do the top 100 worst NFL players now.....I'm sure they'd be a ton of skins on that list. We get no respect[/quote]


Fletch will never get any respect I guess.. Mind blowing and our only player was a guy won't even b on the team.. SMH. Dallas gets 6 players??????? LOL

Re: NFL Top 100
 

This is why you can't let the players have decision making power with anything.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

this list started as a joke by putting mcnabb on there at 100. a guy who was benched towards the end of the season shouldn't be on this list in the first place. Then you put absolutely no other redskins on when we could easily of had 1 more --at worst; 4 more--at best. Fletcher, Orakpo, Landry, DHall.

They put TO on there after a medicore season, Eric Berry with his good, but not spectacular rookie year, and named Brady the best overall when a lot of players say they think mannings better and more respectable. I even remember a player on NFLN saying that he didn't even get this 'list' to vote for...

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;809387]Yeah Williams is a freak and ranked 71 was a joke. Rivers is a top 6 QB and Big Ben is a total winner. Then I think Revis was ranked lower than he should b.[/quote]

Agree with you on Big Ben yet don't agree on Rivers.....he hasn't won a thing.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

Look Eli will never be his brother...yet not many QB's will but to not be on the list at all shows just what a BS list it is.....this from the bleacherreport.com


Matthew Stockman/Getty Images
Recently, the players of the NFL put together a list of what they thought was the Top 100 players in the league. In this list, they left out a player who has a Super Bowl MVP, plays quarterback in one of the toughest markets, and threw more touchdowns this past year than many other players on the list.
Eli Manning.
Last year, Eli Manning had a better yards per attempt average than Peyton Manning, Josh Freeman and Donovan McNabb, yet they were still ranked ahead of him. That's just wrong.
Players such as McNabb threw for less than 20 touchdowns last year while Eli Manning threw for 31 touchdowns and 25 interceptions with a 85.3 quarterback rating.
His total interception level might've been a little high, and he probably should have tried harder to avoid some of them, but to make up for it, he threw for a total of over 4,000 yards last year.
Manning has put together an impressive resumé during his career, and though he might not have an impressive completion percentage, he didn't always have good wide receivers that could catch the ball consistently either.
Other than the fact that some players were wrongly placed on this Top 100 players list due to lack of skill, I also feel that it is wrong to allow players to vote on who makes this list. Due to the amount of flaws in this decision making, it becomes more of a popularity contest to see who can get the most votes.
Statistics show that Eli Manning has overall done better than most NFL quarterbacks, and he deserves to outrun many of the players on this list.
Manning has been underrated, and while it's debatable whether he should replace some of the quarterbacks on this list such as Philip Rivers and Aaron Rodgers, he should have definitely beaten some of the 18 wide receivers who made it.
With all that being said, Eli Manning should have a[I]t least[/I] been placed at the No. 100 spot in place of Donovan McNabb, if not higher up on the list.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

That Eli Manning didn't make it on the list...and even Josh Freeman did. And I love what the guy brings to the table, but come on.

That Donovan McNabb got enough pity votes to make the top 100 and Eli Manning didn't...hell, that Matt Schaub didn't, that fuggin' Mark Sanchez or Matt Cassel didn't. I'd put SAM BRADFORD on there before Donovan McNabb, or friggin' Vonta Leach of all people. The fact they didn't give the players some ground rules on how to vote, and what seems to be a small sample size messed the whole thing up. Possibly on purpose.

I mean according to the players, NO ONE voted on this thing. It's the Top 100 Players, vote on by the players, but there's 1600+ players in the league. So if you have, like 100 players vote on the top 100 then it's not exactly representative of the whole, and there's going to be some unbalanced and down right stupid choices in some spots.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[quote=Giantone;809470]Agree with you on Big Ben yet don't agree on Rivers.....he hasn't won a thing.[/quote]


Huge numbers every year and his team is always tough to beat.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/05/lockout-causes-nfl-network-to-really-reach-with/]Football-starved NFL Network reaches with top 100 list - SignOnSanDiego.com[/url]

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[quote=Mattyk;809547][URL="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/05/lockout-causes-nfl-network-to-really-reach-with/"]Football-starved NFL Network reaches with top 100 list - SignOnSanDiego.com[/URL][/quote]


NFL Network is just brutal right now. That top 100 show was just terrible. Almost unwatchable. Lindsay Soto is nice to look at and that's about it for that show. Plus they play the same damn commercials over and over and over. Hard Knocks re runs are all they have going for them right now.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[quote=Meks;802993]How the f they choose mcnabb from our team is beyond me[/quote]

Excuse me; but the NFL players did the voting here. Are you insinuating that the NFL players don't know enough about pro football to have a valid opinion on who the best players in the league are? And that you know better...?

Or is this another knee-jerk reaction that "everyone out there hates the Redskins and will do anything to heap disrespect and scorn on the team"?

For the record, I would probably put Brian Orakpo on the list as one of the 100 best players in the league. Maybe, I would put London Fletcher there too; but I'm not sure about that.

On the offensive side of the ball - - sad as it may be to swallow - - Donovan McNabb was the best performer for the Skins in 2010 and probably that is what the NFL players saw as they cast their ballots.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

Based on the sad state of this list I would say yes the fans probably know better.

Check out the fan rankings, I think they're much more accurate

[URL="http://top100.nfl.com/"]NFL The Top 100 NFL Players of 2011[/URL]

As for McNabb being the best offensive performer in 2010? I think guys like Moss, Cooley, T. Williams, and even someone like Torain might have something to say about that.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;809623]Excuse me; but the NFL players did the voting here. Are you insinuating that the NFL players don't know enough about pro football to have a valid opinion on who the best players in the league are? And that you know better...?

Or is this another knee-jerk reaction that "everyone out there hates the Redskins and will do anything to heap disrespect and scorn on the team"?

For the record, I would probably put Brian Orakpo on the list as one of the 100 best players in the league. Maybe, I would put London Fletcher there too; but I'm not sure about that.

On the offensive side of the ball - - sad as it may be to swallow - - Donovan McNabb was the best performer for the Skins in 2010 and probably that is what the NFL players saw as they cast their ballots.[/quote]

How does does 14 touchdowns and 15 picks make him the best performer on offense?

It was based off anything he did as a Redskin, it was based off what he did while he was with the eagles. Let's be real about this. I mean it's called the Top 100 Players on 2011, meaning what players will be the best players in 2011. Or at least it does to everyone except the players, who just took the "no criteria" thing and ran with it.

Donovan got a lot of pity votes from the players. Period. I can understand players feeling like he'd been wronged by Mike Shanahan and voting him in, and I can understand then ignoring the players we do have because of that.

But I think the fan vote is closer to how things really are, even though the fan vote has no Redskins on it either.

When you're not a good team you're not going to get focused on, which is sad, because guys like Rak and Fletcher and even Landry deserved to be featured on that list.

Hopefully they use this whole stupid list as motivation.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[quote=Mattyk;809624]Based on the sad state of this list I would say yes the fans probably know better.

Check out the fan rankings, I think they're much more accurate

[URL="http://top100.nfl.com/"]NFL The Top 100 NFL Players of 2011[/URL]

As for McNabb being the best offensive performer in 2010? I think guys like Moss, Cooley, T. Williams, and even someone like Torain might have something to say about that.[/quote]


Sorry I'm a AR12 fan but Tom Brady is the number 1 Player in the league and has been for a while now especially QB. Look what he has to work with every year folks.

Welker is a stud but then.....

B.Tate, D. Branch etc

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;809623]Excuse me; but the NFL players did the voting here. Are you insinuating that the NFL players don't know enough about pro football to have a valid opinion on who the best players in the league are? And that you know better...?[/quote]

[url=http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/So-who-DID-vote-on-the-NFL-Network-s-Top-100-li?urn=nfl-wp3002]So, who DID vote on the NFL Network’s Top 100 list? - Shutdown Corner - NFL*Blog - Yahoo! Sports[/url]

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;809628]Sorry I'm a AR12 fan but [B]Tom Brady is the number 1 Player in the league[/B] and has been for a while now especially QB. Look what he has to work with every year folks.[/quote]

Debatable.

I'd take Manning.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

D.Ware 26?

C Matthews 5?

NFLN rankings were better

Re: NFL Top 100
 

What I notice about the fans list as opposed to the players list is that 1.) the top players tend to be younger and 2.) the higher ranked players tend to be on either winning football teams or teams poised to BECOME winning football teams.

It's The Top 100 of Players of 2011. By it's very name and definition, it should be the players people feel WILL be the best in 2011 based on their 2010 seasons.

That's why a guy like Clay Matthews, coming off a season where he really should've been Defensive Player of the Year (**** Polamalu) is ranked number 5 in the fan vote ahead of DeMarcus Ware; Ware, great as he is, and he is great, is starting to get into those years where his numbers and stats will, possibly, begin to decline, whereas a guy like Clay Matthews is just coming into his prime, and already has his first Super Bowl ring.

If it's about who the best players in 2011 are supposed to be, I can see Clay doing better that D-Ware.

Same thing with Rodgers. Could you argue Tom Brady is probably the G.O.A.T? Yeah, you could make that argument. But, by every facet...numbers wise, championship wise, team wise, Rodgers had a better 2010 than Brady. So it's not hard to imagine why fans would vote him ahead of Tom Brady?

It seems to me, when fans read "The Top 100 Players of 2011", they vote on who they feel will be the Top 100 Players of 2011. When players vote, they throw all logic out the nearest windows and just vote for whoever based on whatever they want because they weren't given any sort of guidelines or rules.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[quote=NLC1054;809626]How does does 14 touchdowns and 15 picks make him the best performer on offense?

It was based off anything he did as a Redskin, it was based off what he did while he was with the eagles. Let's be real about this. I mean it's called the Top 100 Players on 2011, meaning what players will be the best players in 2011. Or at least it does to everyone except the players, who just took the "no criteria" thing and ran with it.

Donovan got a lot of pity votes from the players. Period. I can understand players feeling like he'd been wronged by Mike Shanahan and voting him in, and I can understand then ignoring the players we do have because of that.

But I think the fan vote is closer to how things really are, even though the fan vote has no Redskins on it either.

When you're not a good team you're not going to get focused on, which is sad, because guys like Rak and Fletcher and even Landry deserved to be featured on that list.

Hopefully they use this whole stupid list as motivation.[/quote]



How do McNabb's stats make him the best offensive player last year? Simply because the rest of the offensive players were mediocre at the very best - - so someone with similarly mediocre performance can be the best.

The reality of 2010 is that no offensive player was a stand-out. Some were hampered by injuries; some had off years; some just aren't very good. That is the way it was in 2010; pretending that it was something different may be comforting and may give false hope for 2011.

The great sports writer of the 30s and 40s, AJ Leibling, said this about false hope:
[INDENT]My favorite period of history was the Middle Ages. If you were born a serf, you lived as a serf and you died as a serf. There was no false hope.[/INDENT]
The fan vote takes into accountlots of things that have nothing to do with performance on the field. Look at the fan voting for the MLB All-Star Game if you want an example. Are the 16 starting position players on both teams having the best year in their leagues in 2011. Please do not contort yourself into trying to answer that by saying "Yes". Fans vote for favorites and favorites are not always the best players.

Fans also undervalue some players who are either pains in the ass or are off-field problem children. Examples here might be Michael Vick, Ben Roethlisberger, T.O., Deion Sanders and ...

There are 22 starters on offense and defense. To be in the Top 100 players, a guy needs to be one of the two or three best at his position because some positions - - such as QB, DE, and WR are going to be over-represented.

Based on performance in 2010, which Redskin was one of the top four at his position in the NFL? Only Orakpo comes close to that - - and I would not put him that high on the list of DE/OLBs.

Moss and Cooley's numbers were much better than McNabb's, he was truly mediocre.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[quote=Mattyk;809679]Moss and Cooley's numbers were much better than McNabb's, he was truly mediocre.[/quote]


I see how Moss didn't get in and even CC because he doesn't score many TD's and thats what the league is about but 98? Again I'm just stunned he didnt crack at least 90 or something.. 19.5 Sacks in 2 seasons? Come on

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[quote=Mattyk;809679]Moss and Cooley's numbers were much better than McNabb's, he was truly mediocre.[/quote]I don't think McNabb had the best numbers of any offensive player on the Redskins, but Cooley and Moss struggled in the exact same way that McNabb did, and perhaps because of each other.

McNabb had a good year in terms of accruing yards. 3377 was the fourth highest total of his career, and his 7.2 YPA is actually higher than his Philadelphia career average. Likewise, Cooley and Moss also posted above average career totals in the yardage category.

But when we consider anything else except yardage (TDs, Sacks, Fumbles, INTs, Success rates), only Moss comes out looking anything like career average, and that's because Moss' career relative to other starting WRs isn't quite what Cooley's has been compared to TEs or McNabb compared to QBs. So this year was Moss' 2nd or 3rd best of his career, though I didn't really see enough to say "our offense absolutely can't lose this guy."

No matter what the denominator is here, McNabb and his highest frequency targets all come out looking about the same from a stats perspective. I thought Donovan was "meh" in 2010, and I thought the same about Cooley and Moss.

I thought Anthony Armstrong was the offensive MVP because McNabb wouldn't even have hit 3,000 yards without him taking the top off of defenses. But he may have been the only above average player on the entire offense last year.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;809678]There are 22 starters on offense and defense. To be in the Top 100 players, a guy needs to be one of the two or three best at his position because some positions - - such as QB, DE, and WR are going to be over-represented.

Based on performance in 2010, which Redskin was one of the top four at his position in the NFL? Only Orakpo comes close to that - - and I would not put him that high on the list of DE/OLBs.[/quote]Interior linebackers who should rate higher than London Fletcher: Patrick Willis, Brian Urlacher, Ray Lewis. But Bart Scott and Fletcher are in the top 60 active players in the NFL.

I disagree that Orakpo is a snub from this list. The ESPN top ten pass rushers list? Absolutely. Hard to manipulate reality to find 8 rushers more devastating than Orakpo, much less ten. Freeney, Peppers, Ware, Matthews, Trent Cole, Abraham, Hali and we can go either way on Jared Allen/Dumerville/Robert Mathis/Terrell Suggs/Osi Umeniyora vs Orakpo. Orakpo>Mario Williams/James Harrison/Lamar Woodley just in terms of getting to the quarterback. Maybe Cameron Wake should be here too? I don't see it yet.

With that said, every one of those players is a more complete player than Orakpo at this stage of his career. And Dumerville didn't make the top 100 either.

There's a point to be made here and it's that any team who accomplishes anything has one if not two top pass rushers on their team. We're not well off simply because we have Orakpo. Every playoff contender has an Orakpo (with the notable exception of the Pats and Jets). This is the logic behind the Kerrigan pick. In 2009, you needed a Brian Orakpo to even compete defensively. In 2011, you need Brian Orakpo and Ryan Kerrigan, and they both need to be healthy the whole season.

Re: NFL Top 100
 

This is just interesting to me. Obviously, no lineman are considered by the DVOA stat.

[B]Highest DVOA amongst Redskins offensive contributors last year (minimum 30 plays)[/B]:

[I]*QBs and RBs DVOA is a weighted average of receiving/passing and rushing. I did not consider rushing value for the WRs. But if I did, basically I'd be counting five plays where Moss either ran backwards or fumbled, or in one case, did both.[/I]

1. Fred Davis 40.0%
2. Clinton Portis 12.1%
3. Anthony Armstrong 7.4%
4. Keiland Williams 3.6%
5. Donovan McNabb 0.7%
6. Santana Moss -2.1%
7. Ryan Torain -3.1%
8. Chris Cooley -7.2%
9. Rex Grossman -19.1%
10. Joey Galloway -41.9%

Playing Grossman for 3 games had a net negative effect on the offense, as you might imagine. Even then, he didn't always get the best effort of his teammates (looking at you, Cooley).

In terms of just doing traditional tight end stuff, Fred Davis is a much better player than Chris Cooley. That doesn't mean there isn't value in Cooley's excellent Patriots-style versatility that Davis can't replicate, just that if you're looking for a starting in-line tight end and you have no offensive creativity (looking at you, Kyle), Davis is the better option.

Did you know the Redskins are going to have to replace Clinton Portis' production next year? Oh boy.