NFL.com's top 100
 

[url=http://top100.nfl.com/]NFL.com | NFL Top 100 | Tracker[/url]
They have released numbers 11-100 so far. Im pretty sure I know 9 of the top 10, but I am dumbfounded as to who could be that last person. Also, the limited space left makes it seems to me like alot of players that should be on the list got snubbed.

9 Players I know will make it
Peyton Manning
LT
Walter Payton
Joe Montanna
Jerry Rice
Reggie White
(The following guys I am too young to know, but know will get in based on what I have heard)
Jim Brown
Dick Butkas
Johnny Unitas

Who is the last person?

There are def going to be snubs.

My money would be that Bradshaw gets the last spot. From what I hear, he doesn't really deserve it, but those rings are one hell of a resume to not make the top 100 list.
edit: yes, now I know bradshaw is on the list

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

Bradshaw is already on the list

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

Bradshaw is 50..

My bet is on Barry sanders

Edit: sanders is already on list also lol

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

2 Redskins........

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

Yeah Bradshaw is #50

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

Steve largent

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

The missing name must be Colt Brennan.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

^ Tim tebow

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

How could Art Monk not be in the top 100? What a bunch of crap. Jim Brown or Jim Thorpe should be #1.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

Charles Mann, Dexter Mannley, Art Monk, or Wilber Marshall didn't make it.

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

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

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

Where's John Elway on the List?
Has he been mentioned already?

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

Patrick Ramsey and Devin Thomas....greatest Redskins to not be great.....they were not given a fair shot. Which is why they are such huge stars on their new teams.
Doh!
These kind of lists are stupid.
Of course the list will be mostly QB's, WR's, RB's and TE's.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

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

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

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

We're talking top 100 players of all time, that's very exclusive company. The guys you listed while very good players, aren't in the elite of all time.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

[quote=aceinthehouse;753617]Where's John Elway on the List?
Has he been mentioned already?[/quote]

I think he was around #23 or so. Barry Sanders should have been in the top 5 IMO. I still don't know why so many people put Walter Payton ahead of him. To me the 2 best rbs in the history of the NFL is 1A.) Jim Brown and 1B.)Barry Sanders as there will NEVER be anyone like either of those guys again. I don't even think Payton was the best Bears rb as I'd personally have Sayers ahead of him.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

Lol, Bradshaw is a borderline candidate for the top 100. Putting him the top 10 would have been turrible.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

Deacon Jones.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

Dick LeBeau. Bruce Smith.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

[quote=diehard;753627]Deacon Jones.[/quote]

Just reading that name scares me.

I vote for chuck norms for obvious reasons.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

No Sammy Baugh??

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

George Stanley Halas, coach of Chicago Staleys in 1920, got the team from Staley Starch Works started the league with 12 teams

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

[quote=darrell_green_28;753632]no sammy baugh??[/quote]

#14..........

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

Thorpe and Baugh are much lower on the list than I would have thought. Halas wasn't a player so I don't see him there

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

[quote=SmootSmack;753646][B]Thorpe and Baugh are much lower on the list than I would have thought. [/B]Halas wasn't a player so I don't see him there[/quote]

Yes, Thorpe and Baugh seem to have been robbed.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

How about Don Hutson

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

[quote=SmootSmack;753646]Thorpe and Baugh are much lower on the list than I would have thought. Halas wasn't a player so I don't see him there[/quote]I'm watching the Top Ten show now, I hadn't followed last week....this list has no credibility if Baugh isn't top 10. He should be #1.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

Don Hutson was the missing guy from the original post. Sammy Baugh was #14. Now I never watched him play but I still believe being #14 out of the thousands, if not millions, of players to come through the NFL, well that's still a very great honor. I think it was a very good list.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;756333]I'm watching the Top Ten show now, I hadn't followed last week....this list has no credibility if Baugh isn't top 10. He should be #1.[/quote]

no shit,im watching it now and Baugh not being in the top ten is a travesty.Im up to 5,Walter paytons 5,which i dont have a problem with,but they called him the most complete player to ever play,R U frickin kidding me!! because he blocked and threw an occasional pass he's a more complete player than Sammy baugh! no fing way
And if Emmitt Smith is in the top 10 Im gonna be pissed!:soapbox::spank:

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

[quote=mooby;756336]Don Hutson was the missing guy from the original post. Sammy Baugh was #14. Now I never watched him play but I still believe being #14 out of the thousands, if not millions, of players to come through the NFL, well that's still a very great honor. I think it was a very good list.[/quote]

Well, there you go

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/753649-post24.html[/url]

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

I sort of figured Jerry Rice to be number 1. His stats are too far ahead of the next guy. class act, something like 20 years in the league. Heck, the whole idea to come up with this list may have been because of him. I've been a Skins fan since 1979 and I feel priviledged to have watched football during the 80's and 90s. Of the top 5, Montana, L.T. and Rice were players from that era. Jim Brown at 2 is almost a mythical figure today. Enjoy the Peyton Manning and Tom Brady right now, we may not see another like them for awhile. With all of the media focus on Brett Favre these days, when Manning and Brady walk away, the league will not be the same.

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

Darrell Green is only given credit for15 seasons. Mabye he'd be higher if they didnt take a 1/4 of his carrer away from him?

7558[URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/#"][COLOR=#364c88]Green, Darrell[/COLOR][/URL]DBRedskins1983[IMG]http://images.sportstechinc.com/sportstech_top100/images/draft_mvp/mini_hof_logo.png?1278955909[/IMG]15 seasons
[URL="http://top100.nfl.com/?module=HP_cp2"]NFL.com | NFL Top 100 | Tracker[/URL]

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

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

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

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

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

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

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

Trvaesty. Idiots made the list.


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

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

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

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

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

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

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

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

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

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

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

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

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

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

Look up the defensive stats for those teams yourself.

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

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

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

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

Look up the defensive stats for those teams yourself.

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

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

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

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

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

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

Re: NFL.com's top 100
 

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

As did Simpson and Sanders.