Debating The Top 100 NFL Players Of All Time List

Debating The Top 100 NFL Players Of All Time List

Top NFL Players of All Time

Ok, Because I am bored on a Sunday afternoon during the summer, I thought that the NFL fans of ATS might want to get their Football fix by discussing the insanity of the latest list of the top NFL players of all time. As the saying goes, well my saying anyway, there are only two seasons, The NFL season and waiting for the NFL season. Let's do it.

So, Let's start with the top 10, cause I probably won't take this past the top 50 as far as discussion goes, but who knows. I am going to start by saying that I agree with number 1# Jerry Rice, and number 2# Jim Brown.

Now, I must say that even though I am a die hard 49er fan, My heart is not fully committed to Jerry having the number 1# spot because I believe that running backs take more of a beating than wide receivers do and Jim Brown did so much in a shorter career and a shorter football season, but if we question that then it brings in the fact that a lot of defensive players are taking a lot of abuse as well. So I am just going to play the judges game here with their own list.

I have to say that I have a serious problem with Lawrence Taylor being number 3# of all time, though a QB killing machine, to have him before Reggie White (7#) is not of this world. Taylor played 13 seasons and White 17. How long a player's body can withstand the brutal world of the NFL says a lot, just as much as if they obtain the same high number of sacks but while playing a less amount of time. we have no choice but to consider both in this arena here.I'll add to my top 10 discussion later.

However, One thing that would make it much easier on everyone is if they just would make a top 100 offensive players, a top 100 defensive players, a top 100 special teams players, a top 100 practice squad players (LMAO! Just kidding with that one) and a top 100 kickers of all time. Well, maybe a top 10 or 20 kickers of all time. LMAO!

Thoughts? Eventually I will give my top 50 ect, but I want to hear what you guys think about their top 10 thus far? Do you like it, would you change it, and if so what would you change? This thread may drift on for months until the NFL season, so no time table here, if you're bored like I was today, post away. Best wishes ~$heopleNation

Taylor played 13 seasons and White 17. How long a player's body can withstand the brutal world of the NFL says a lot, just as much as if they obtain the same high number of sacks but while playing a less amount of time. we have no choice but to consider both in this arena here.I'll add to my top 10 discussion later.

OK so here you argue that White should be higher because he played longer and "that says a lot"

Jim Brown did so much in a shorter career

Then you argue FOR someone playing shorter. By this logic shouldn't Walter Payton be higher than Brown? Emmit Smith?

But wait if it's what a player does and not how long they play then shouldn't Gale Sayers be the #1 running back?

Lists like these are sooooo subjective there is no RIGHT or WRONG answer at any number on the list, it is all personal choice and a waste of time to argue about. Look what you did in your OP you choose both sides of an argument for two different players.

Btw #1 should be Marino and #2' through 100 doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Carreau
OK so here you argue that White should be higher because he played longer and "that says a lot"

Yeah, it does say a lot, but it doesn't say it all now does it?

Then you argue FOR someone playing shorter. By this logic shouldn't Walter Payton be higher than Brown? Emmit Smith?

Listen, if you are having a problem comprehending my opening thread, then I will help you out once. The reason I made those contradicting arguments was because we can assume that they are going to be used. Try reading again, there was nothing hypocritical about what I said because the entire point was forecasting the fact that those opposing arguments are going to be made. So let's not create an issue when there is not one, this is for fun.

My reason for wanting White higher than Taylor is mainly because he had 198 sacks to Taylors 132 1/2. I mean, Taylor is 9th all time, where White is 2nd right behind Bruce Smith. So, now follow me here, this is where you could come in and argue that Taylor played a less amount of time, get it? Course that would be your own personal choice to do so.

But wait if it's what a player does and not how long they play then shouldn't Gale Sayers be the #1 running back?

Absolutely he should be higher, but not for that reason. He probably should be in the top 10 simply because the guy was a stud.

Lists like these are sooooo subjective there is no RIGHT or WRONG answer at any number on the list, it is all personal choice and a waste of time to argue about.

Wrong, it would not be interesting if there was a right answer. If you think it's a waste of time, take a walk then.

Look what you did in your OP you choose both sides of an argument for two different players.

Wrong again, it's what you assumed that I did in my OP.

Btw #1 should be Marino and #2' through 100 doesn't matter.

Nope, he never won a Super bowl which = ePIC fAIL! However, he certainly should not be number 25, I'll give yuh that. Marino did set some serious records, but Super bowl wins must play a part when it comes to judging QB's. If you want to make an argument for Marino, then step up to the plate my friend? ~$heopleNation

reply to post by SheopleNation

Nope, he never won a Super bowl which = ePIC fAIL! However, he certainly should not be number 25, I'll give yuh that. Marino did set some serious records, but Super bowl wins must play a part when it comes to judging QB's. If you want to make an argument for Marino, then step up to the plate my friend? ~$heopleNation

To blame a QB for not winning a Super Bowl is retarded. If you think 1 player is the only reason a TEAM wins a Super Bowl, then by that reasoning if Montana was on the Bucs in late 70's early 80's they would have 4 rings? I'm going to say a Defense, WR's, and a running game has something to do with Rings.

Trent Dilfer has a Ring, by your logic or lack there of he is a better QB than every other QB without one. Stupid.

Originally posted by Carreau
To blame a QB for not winning a Super Bowl is retarded. If you think 1 player is the only reason a TEAM wins a Super Bowl, then by that reasoning if Montana was on the Bucs in late 70's early 80's they would have 4 rings? I'm going to say a Defense, WR's, and a running game has something to do with Rings.

Umm, There is this thing called a QB that throws and hands the ball off to receivers and RB's. They also keep the defense off the field so they can rest.

Trent Dilfer has a Ring, by your logic or lack there of he is a better QB than every other QB without one. Stupid.

El WrongO! Dilfer's career stats are garbage. So your reckless assumption concerning my logic means absolutely nothing.

LMAO! Calm down bro. Are you still sore at the Beaver for Super Bowl XIX where my 49ers owned you guys? What was it, something like 38 - 16? Even with Clayton and Duper, Danny boy just couldn't get it done?

Hell of a record setting year though for him. Hey listen, I love Dan Marino, he's a class act. However, number 1#? You bumped your head chief. LOL! ~$heopleNation