49 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

https://www.nfl.com/...ime-team/roster

[Mike in STL]

Maybe the elder statesman here can fill me in. Should Art Donovan made this list over any of the DTs listed?

Also coaches. Hard to swallow not seeing Bill Walsh on there.

[mdrunning]

Bill Hewitt is certainly a name you don't hear much anymore. His even bigger claim to fame might be as one of the last players in the NFL who refused to wear a helmet.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I’m sure Tomlinson and Faulk don’t belong on the list. These lists ALWAYS skew towards older generations. Annoying

[Pedro Cerrano]

Like I’m sure Earl Dutch Clark was a terrific player in his day but youll never convince me he was a better running back than Marshall Faulk. Ever

[mweb08]

Zero active players so far, which seems off.

[mdrunning]

Maybe the elder statesman here can fill me in. Should Art Donovan made this list over any of the DTs listed?

Also coaches. Hard to swallow not seeing Bill Walsh on there.

And Vince Lombardi. And Tom Landry. Not to belittle Chuck Noll, but his Steeler teams after the 1970s were pretty mediocre. 

 

I honestly can't argue with any of the tackles listed here instead of Artie. What might have hurt him was playing for godawful teams early in his career and being cast in defenses that didn't really suit his abilities. He was much quicker than he looked.

 

Doug Atkins at defensive end is a bit dubious. He was good, no doubt, and he was so damn big that he couldn't help but be noticed. But from what I've read about him, both teammates and opponents alike have said he wasn't always consistent, be it from game to game or even play to play. When he was on, however, he was a terror.

 

Jack Youngblood, Willie Davis, or Rich "Tombstone" Jackson would have been better choices, in my opinion.

[mdrunning]

Like I’m sure Earl Dutch Clark was a terrific player in his day but youll never convince me he was a better running back than Marshall Faulk. Ever

You judge guys by their own time. 

[mdrunning]

Zero active players so far, which seems off.

It's easier to evaluate complete careers than those which are still ongoing.

 

If it were up to me, I wouldn't include any active players on these types of lists. Have them finish their careers, then let history judge them accordingly. 

[Mike in STL]

Zero active players so far, which seems off.

Watt would be the only one I can think of of the positions listed.

100% positive Brady is on there.

[mweb08]

It's easier to evaluate complete careers than those which are still ongoing.

If it were up to me, I wouldn't include any active players on these types of lists. Have them finish their careers, then let history judge them accordingly.

I'm pretty sure at least one active player will make it.

That said, I agree with you to an extent. If a player is still somewhat early in his career, then yeah, he likely doesn't deserve to be on a list like this, but if a guy is at the point that they'd make the list if they retired today, they should be on it now then.

Btw, MLB and the NBA both included active players on their most recent anniversary teams.

[mweb08]

Watt would be the only one I can think of of the positions listed.

100% positive Brady is on there.

Yeah, Brady will be on there.

Peterson should be there for RB.

The list so far is also light on recently retired players.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Yeah, Brady will be on there.

Peterson should be there for RB.

The list so far is also light on recently retired players.

Yup. Forgot AP too. Def belongs

[Pedro Cerrano]

Boot out any white RB that played before 1990 and put real guys in

[mweb08]

Btw, it makes it harder to keep active guys out because they haven't been great long enough when Gale Sayers and Earl Campbell make it.

[mweb08]

Btw, it makes it harder to keep active guys out because they haven't been great long enough when Gale Sayers and Earl Campbell make it.

For instance, Aaron Donald has already eclipsed those guys imo. 5 time pro bowler, 4 time all-pro, and 2 time defensive player of the year he'll likely add one to those first two categories at the conclusion of this year.

[mdrunning]

Btw, it makes it harder to keep active guys out because they haven't been great long enough when Gale Sayers and Earl Campbell make it.

Yeah, I thought of that, too. Gale Sayers was electric, but knee injuries ruined him when he still should have been in his prime. Same with Earl Campbell. He was just wide open when he ran, never protected himself, and the pounding took a toll very quickly. The poor guy can hardly walk now.

 

I guess the argument you can make for such players is that even though their careers were short, they were head and shoulders above their peers while still in their abbreviated primes.

[mdrunning]

Boot out any white RB that played before 1990 and put real guys in

Both Dutch Clark and Steve van Buren were legit. In fact, you could also make a case for Jim Taylor, who was the only running back to beat out Jim Brown for the rushing title.

 

I get the argument of players today being bigger, stronger and faster. That's true of practically every American, however. We're all bigger. Therefore, some standardization of points of comparison is necessary. If Dutch Clark or Steve van Buren were entering the NFL today, they wouldn't be coming in at 5-10 and under 200 lbs. Their size would be much more reflective of today's society as a whole. 

 

Conversely, if Adrian Peterson or Marshall Faulk or any star of the more modern time had entered the NFL 50, 60 or even 70 years ago, they'd be smaller in stature as well. Like skill position players of today, they'd be giving away 50 or more pounds every time they hit the line. 

 

They'd also have to compete in a time where players had to work off-season jobs, and would have had to go against defenses in a run-heavy league where tackling and felonious assault weren't that distinctive. Additionally, they'd have to endure two-a-days in the boiling hot sun during training camp, then get the living bejesus knocked out of them in a six-game preseason.

 

The comparisons work both ways. Bill Russell, recently retired from the Celtics following the 1969 season, was asked during the following season how he would have done against Milwaukee Bucks rookie Lew Alcindor. Russell looked at the reporter, smiled and said, "Young man, I think you have the question backwards."

[Pedro Cerrano]

Bill Russell is probably the most overrated athlete in history so a perfectly apt comparison.

[mweb08]

I'm pretty sure at least one active player will make it.

That said, I agree with you to an extent. If a player is still somewhat early in his career, then yeah, he likely doesn't deserve to be on a list like this, but if a guy is at the point that they'd make the list if they retired today, they should be on it now then.

Btw, MLB and the NBA both included active players on their most recent anniversary teams.

I should add that the NFL also included active players when they did the 75th anniversary team in '94 (Rice, White, Woodson).