NFL to name a team of the 100 greatest players of all time
 

Rich Eisen announced today, as part of the NFL 100th year.
Eisen, Chris Collinsworth and (wait for it) Hoodie will be hosting the 6-week series.

Thoughts?

There's about 300 Hall of Fame inductees, so roughly 2/3 won't make it to the all time team, and that doesn't include Mahomes, etc. who are still playing.

Over/under on how many Chiefs?


https://twitter.com/richeisen/status...467344386?s=12

If Mahomes isn’t #1 the list is shit.

YEP

Realistically, we're looking at Tony G, DT, and Will Shields is probably a long shot.

I dunno... sounds like a mess of an idea.

Lanier, Buchanan, and Bobby Bell have a really good shot. They often show up in top 100 lists from what I remember.

Montana, DT, Lanier, Bell, Tony, you know thou they bringing out the butt boy brady and elway.

Belichick is a student of the game. I could see him including one of them, but likely no more.

I just think they're going to have some stiff competition from bigger, more recent LB names like Ray Lewis, Lawrence Taylor, Urlacher, DT, Singletary, Butkus, etc.

montana doesn't count if only a chief :D

I remember the 75 year team. I wonder how many of those guys get bumped off this new list?

http://www.nfl.com/history/legends/75th

You don't think Brady should be on the top 100 players all-time list?

Alot. If nothing else, recency bias is a real thing.

Butkus was a contemporary of Lanier. Urlacher and Singletary couldn't hold Mr. Lanier's jock.

WRs then were Alworth, Berry, Hutson, Rice.

Rice definitely stays, and Hutson probably does too. He was the Rice of his era -- completely rewrote everything. Berry and Alworth are out in favor of Moss and someone -- could be a few different guys -- Julio, Megatron, TO, Larry Fitz.


TE -- Ditka and Kellen Winslow both replaced -- TonyG and Gronk.

Chiefs on the 75th anniversary team were Montana, Lanier, Mike Webster- -- who I didn't even know ended his career with the Chiefs, and Jan Stenerud.

That doesn't bode well for Bell or Buchanan being on the 100 year team.

Looking at that 75th anniversary team list -- you know what really stands out? There's not a single guy on there with a playing weight over 290.

Only TWO guys above 275. Munoz at 285 and Reggie White at 290. Jesus...

I think you have to add DT to the list and maybe Tony G.

If Orlando Scandrick makes it, do we get to claim him?

Tony G is more of a lock than DT I think.

But it sounds like they're doubling the roster size, so that opens up some spots.

Based on the wording of the original post, though, is it a team or just top 100 players? I don't like seeing a list that has 25 qbs.

And, going back to his 'recency' comment... I think you're going to see this list littered with 'stat guys' from the last 15 years. Many that will knock off those generally viewed as legitimate greats.

Yeah, history starts with TV, unfortunately. Or worse, the list makers' 9th birthday in many cases.

Sorry, I completely whiffed that the "roster size" is expanding.

Looks like "top 100 players", so I expect it will be somewhat overstocked with QBs as it doesn't seem like they're trying to do a balanced "roster" really.

Then again, the little intro video thing Eisen did calls it the All Time TEAM, so....??

Brady will get in just not a fan of his i like drew bledsoe!

Brady is a lock, likely Peyton as well and Brees, maybe Favre.

Bledsoe was a great guy, but as I've always said, he had a million dollar arm and a ten cent head.

So you think that Brady is better than Bledsoe? Just checking. That would tie the score at 1-1 in early voting with you and kcnut.

That would be my formal vote, yes.

I'm confused. For the 75th, they made it a team with representation at each position like a roster. So I was expecting the same thing here. But in looking around, my hunch is that it's probably going to be something like the 100 most influential players of the past 100 years.

That's fine. If that's the case, it should be interesting. I figure it'll be mostly QBs, RBs, and WRs, though.

This is the only thing I see at the moment that's official, and it doesn't shed much light. In fact, it doesn't appear to even mention a top 100 team: https://www.nfl.com/100/originals/

No way Gronk is on it only playing 9 years.

You might be right... he's 104th all time on receiving yards and tied for 28th in TDs. But, the recency thing and the Patriots stuff may push him over.

Perhaps not. I don't consider 9 years short, but he didn't even play all of those 9 years.

But he's still the best TE I ever saw. If I had one game to win and any single player in NFL history at TE for that game, it'd be Gronk.

Well, 3rd all-time in touchdowns for a TE. Gates, Gonzalez, then Gronk.

Only TE to lead all receivers in touchdowns in a season.

Only TE to have 3+ seasons with 10+ TDs and 1,000+ yards.

Tied most seasons by a TE with 1,000+ yards


On the plus side, let's face it, he was a much better blocker than TonyG or Gates....or most any other TE ever who was any good as a receiver. His passer target rating was ridiculous, as was his TD/game ratio.

On the minus side, his stats are inflated by playing with Brady his whole career, as opposed to some schmucks. I didn't both listing any of his many playoff/SB records, because those are a function of the teams he played with. They should help his HOF candidacy, but I don't think it's fair to post them compared to Gonzalez/Gates/whoever for who should be on the top 100 list.

Bottom line -- if you told me we're creating an NFL league that will last 10 years only, and I had my pick of any TE ever, I'd take Gronk. Utterly dominant.

Just a hunch, but I’m guessing OJ Simpson gets bumped.

Aaron Hernandez was better.

If they have a 100-man roster with positional representation, then one would expect 5 or 6 TEs, probably five. We know that Gonzalez will be on it, and I can't imagine Winslow getting kicked off. So that would leave three open spots for TEs. Ditka will likely retain one since he was on the 75-year team. So the next two are being pulled from Gronkowski and the HoF folks on this list.

Dave Casper 1974-1984
John Mackey 1963-1972
Ozzie Newsome 1978-1990
Charlie Sanders 1968-1977
Shannon Sharpe 1990-2003
Jackie Smith 1963-1978

Mackey is always talked about as an all-time great, and I could see Gronkowski beating out Smith and Newsome for a spot despite his injury history. Mackey only had ten years, though I feel like the medical advances should give the older guys more credit for longevity over the guys who came after 1990 or so.

Gronk is too injury prone to be considered better than Tony G. He only had 2 seasons where he played a full 16 games.

Tony G was much better in the blocking game (which was much more valuable back then) and had really good numbers with crap quarterbacks. He was just as good of a receiver as Gronk without the GOAT throwing to him.

Gronk played on loaded teams with a HOF QB. Gonzo played with shit QB's and was constantly held or double-teamed.

Gronk had some good years but was hurt all the time. Gonzo was always healthy and was good Every year.

Gonzo is much greater than Gronk in every category except in SB wins. And that is a team achievement.

My next question is about era. Simple math implies that, among the top 100 players of the past 100 years, you'd expect roughly 10 from each decade of play. Setting aside differences in training and medicine and strategy evolution, there's no reason to think that players today are more dominating among their peers than the players of yesteryear, right?

So the list should rightfully include 10 players who were active in the 1920s, 10 from the 1930s, and so on.

The 1950s and 1940s are mysterious eras to me. I know a bit about the pioneers from the 20s and 30s, and I know about the players I've seen from the 1970s on. I feel like I know the 1960s because that era was kind of televised and it was recent history when I started watching football.

But the 40s and the 50s are a big black hole for me in football knowledge.

TonyG was a better blocker than Gronk? Am I reading that right?

Gonzo played with "shit" QBs for about half his career. Trent Green (6 years) was not a shit quarterback, nor was Matt Ryan (4 years). Obviously, Brady is alot better than those guys, no argument there.

Don't tell me that Gonzo was held or doubled more than Gronk. I'm sure he was held a ton, but Gronk was abused like hell, and he never had a Priest Holmes or Larry Johnson or those guys in the running game.

Yep, that's why I mentioned "one game" and the like. At his peak and healthy, Gronk is the best I ever saw. Obviously, though the injuries are a factor, and his career was substantially shorter than TonyG.

"Every category"? Blocking? Yeah, no. Sorry, but just no. Gronk routinely blocked defensive ends singled up, and was involved in wham blocks on alot of very good interior rushers.

If Jim Brown isn't #1 even after Mahomes retires, the list is shit.

I see now that Lanier made the 75-year team but with other names I'd still bet he gets bumped.

Did Jim Brown win eight consecutive Super Bowls like Mahomes did? I think not.

It is going to suck. The premerger players will get screwed.

God if only....

Valid argument, sure. Jim Brown only won five consecutive Super Bowls when he came out of retirement after Mahomes’ remarkable run.