- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 26,100
- Reaction score
- 52,114
Tom Curran put Vince Wilfork at #2. In my opinion, this is a good choice although there is more than one good choice. Curran's criteria is below:
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/brian-waters-is-50th-best-player-of-bill-belichick-era
-- First, level of play. How good was the player in his tenure with the team?
-- Next, impact. How consequential to the team’s success was his presence? Did he make improve the play of the players around him? Was he a player opponents had to specifically concern themselves with?
-- Next, team success. How much did the player contribute to outstanding teams? How many outstanding teams was he a part of?
-- Finally, Patriotism. It’s a “know it when you see it” kind of thing. A combination of game intelligence. versatility, the ability to perform well in big games and not giving a crap who gets the credit. Hard to measure.
Who would you vote for #2? Did Curran get it right, or was there another player more deserving? I've included a poll. The poll didn't allow for any more slots, and the other players I was going to add were Vinatieri, Welker, and Light.
I couldn't bring myself to add Mankins even though by individual accolades, he may be the second most decorated player behind only Brady. Too many nightmarish memories of him getting destroyed in the playoffs and SBs time after time, injured or not. Many would argue the same about Welker, though he typically performed well in big games with the exception of a few memorable plays.
Hopefully the guys I left on were the right choices. Although Moss is the only one without a ring, come on, man, it's Randy Moss. 2007 may have been the greatest season by an offensive player (non-QB) this century.
Apologies in advance for leaving off Ochocinco.
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/brian-waters-is-50th-best-player-of-bill-belichick-era
-- First, level of play. How good was the player in his tenure with the team?
-- Next, impact. How consequential to the team’s success was his presence? Did he make improve the play of the players around him? Was he a player opponents had to specifically concern themselves with?
-- Next, team success. How much did the player contribute to outstanding teams? How many outstanding teams was he a part of?
-- Finally, Patriotism. It’s a “know it when you see it” kind of thing. A combination of game intelligence. versatility, the ability to perform well in big games and not giving a crap who gets the credit. Hard to measure.
Who would you vote for #2? Did Curran get it right, or was there another player more deserving? I've included a poll. The poll didn't allow for any more slots, and the other players I was going to add were Vinatieri, Welker, and Light.
I couldn't bring myself to add Mankins even though by individual accolades, he may be the second most decorated player behind only Brady. Too many nightmarish memories of him getting destroyed in the playoffs and SBs time after time, injured or not. Many would argue the same about Welker, though he typically performed well in big games with the exception of a few memorable plays.
Hopefully the guys I left on were the right choices. Although Moss is the only one without a ring, come on, man, it's Randy Moss. 2007 may have been the greatest season by an offensive player (non-QB) this century.
Apologies in advance for leaving off Ochocinco.
Last edited:
