Finalists for NFL 100's top ten coaches of all time...

[Joey007]

Tony Dungy is the Jerome Bettis of HC’s.

People romanticize his career as being something more than it really was.

 

[24Law]

I am sorry maybe i am biased, but how can number one be anyone else than BB..?

 

[slam]

I think the game is to just pick ONE coach as the all-time team. Not a top 10. I think BB would be at least a top-three contender, depending on how much reverence goes the big names that haven't been active for 40 years.

Given the results of the lists unveiled so far, it will be no surprise if they choose an oldie. The greatest play was the Immaculate Conception. Only one team from the 2000’s was in the top 15.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Looks like this Top 100 thing is as awful as one would have guessed. In all seriousness all these players are great but top 10 all time?
The bias is strong lol. Smith is the only guy on the list that has played in the last 20-30 years lol. When none of Faulk, Peterson & LT are on your list it loses some credibility imho. Sanders, Payton, OJ & Brown are obvious imo but I have a hard time calling the rest special. Faulk & LT were Kamara 20 years ago.


Assuming this is for the same list??

 

[lancerman]

Looks like this Top 100 thing is as awful as one would have guessed. In all seriousness all these players are great but top 10 all time?
The bias is strong lol. Smith is the only guy on the list that has played in the last 20-30 years lol. When none of Faulk, Peterson & LT are on your list it loses some credibility imho. Sanders, Payton, OJ & Brown are obvious imo but I have a hard time calling the rest special. Faulk & LT were Kamara 20 years ago.


Assuming this is for the same list??

Faulk had a 4 year peak. Peterson is still playing. And LT never won a title.

I think you have recency bias a bit. Faulk is an MVP but he had a very short prime. LT and Peterson are better but they lack rings.

Jim Brown/Payton/Sanders and OJ need no debate imo.

Earl Campbell is an MVP, 3x All Pro, 3x OPOY, led the league in rushing yards 3 straight years.

Dutch Clark is a 3x rushing leader, NFL champion, and 6x First Team All Pro.

Eric ****erson is a 5x First Team All Pro, OPOY, 4x rushing leader

Lenny Moore is a 2x NFL Champion 5x First Team All Pro, 2X Second Team All Pro, and got an NEA MVP back when it actually mattered.

Marion Motley has 5 championships between the AAFC and NFL. he also has the All time records for yards per carry for a fullback.

Gale Sayers, longevity will always be an issue but for a 7 year career he had 5x First Team All Pros, was a rookie of the year, a 2x rushing leader, set the record for all purpose yards in a game, still holds numerous Bears records despite Walter Payton existing.

Emmitt Smith he's the all time leading rusher nough said.

Steve Van Buren 2x NFL champion, 6x First Team All Pro, 1x Second Team All Pro, 4x rushing leader and 4x rushing td leader, was the first to rush for 10 touchdowns in a season under a much shorter schedule.

The reality is there are a lot of great running backs. It would be hard to pick out one and take out another. All these guys have accolades comparable with any of the guys you mentioned. People were going to get left out and this is an All Time list. Not players we watched

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I am sorry maybe i am biased, but how can number one be anyone else than BB..?

Paul Brown is #1. So many things you take for granted about football were invented by him.

 

[Deus Irae]

Looks like this Top 100 thing is as awful as one would have guessed. In all seriousness all these players are great but top 10 all time?
The bias is strong lol. Smith is the only guy on the list that has played in the last 20-30 years lol. When none of Faulk, Peterson & LT are on your list it loses some credibility imho. Sanders, Payton, OJ & Brown are obvious imo but I have a hard time calling the rest special. Faulk & LT were Kamara 20 years ago.


Assuming this is for the same list??

It's the right list, and the picks are solid. Hell, if you're looking to drop a RB down a notch or two, you're quite possibly dropping Smith. If you look at the other most recent guys

Brown
Campbell
Sanders
****erson
Payton
Simpson
Sayers

you're not finding anyone since 1990 to knock any of them off the list. So, really, people such as yourself, looking to find space for the modern RBs, are stuck arguing against the earliest of backs + Smith.

Van Buren
Clark
Moore
Motley
Smith

and that's a tough bit of sledding. For me, the great disappointment when looking at all time great RBs is that we don't have a fuller career for Bo Jackson to be evaluated on.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Faulk had a 4 year peak. Peterson is still playing. And LT never won a title.

I think you have recency bias a bit. Faulk is an MVP but he had a very short prime. LT and Peterson are better but they lack rings.

Jim Brown/Payton/Sanders and OJ need no debate imo.

Earl Campbell is an MVP, 3x All Pro, 3x OPOY, led the league in rushing yards 3 straight years.

Dutch Clark is a 3x rushing leader, NFL champion, and 6x First Team All Pro.

Eric ****erson is a 5x First Team All Pro, OPOY, 4x rushing leader

Lenny Moore is a 2x NFL Champion 5x First Team All Pro, 2X Second Team All Pro, and got an NEA MVP back when it actually mattered.

Marion Motley has 5 championships between the AAFC and NFL. he also has the All time records for yards per carry for a fullback.

Gale Sayers, longevity will always be an issue but for a 7 year career he had 5x First Team All Pros, was a rookie of the year, a 2x rushing leader, set the record for all purpose yards in a game, still holds numerous Bears records despite Walter Payton existing.

Emmitt Smith he's the all time leading rusher nough said.

Steve Van Buren 2x NFL champion, 6x First Team All Pro, 1x Second Team All Pro, 4x rushing leader and 4x rushing td leader, was the first to rush for 10 touchdowns in a season under a much shorter schedule.

The reality is there are a lot of great running backs. It would be hard to pick out one and take out another. All these guys have accolades comparable with any of the guys you mentioned. People were going to get left out and this is an All Time list. Not players we watched

Honestly not sure what rings has to do w this? This is abt a individual greatness.

Also Faulk's "4 year peak" are as good/better than anyone on the list. More than a few guys on that list have short career. And you're either forgetting or don't know Faulk was underutilized in his early career.

All due respect to Dutch Clark he played 7 years. 2772 rushing yard, 36 TD fumbled 42 times

Also LT's peak year blow that list out the water. Sure different eras, I absolutely understand but I have a hard time buying this list. It's all opinion, I get it but I question anyone's credibility touting Clark > LT or many others.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

It's the right list, and the picks are solid. Hell, if you're looking to drop a RB down a notch or two, you're quite possibly dropping Smith. If you look at the other most recent guys

Brown
Campbell
Sanders
****erson
Payton
Simpson
Sayers

you're not finding anyone since 1990 to knock any of them off the list. So, really, people such as yourself, looking to find space for the modern RBs, are stuck arguing against the earliest of backs + Smith.

Van Buren
Clark
Moore
Motley
Smith

and that's a tough bit of sledding. For me, the great disappointment when looking at all time great RBs is that we don't have a fuller career for Bo Jackson to be evaluated on.

Ok

 

[Deus Irae]

Ok

I'm not trying to say you don't have a point. I wasn't even looking at it that way, beyond that first 7. I was just noting that it's tough to take the most modern of modern RBs and argue them against the very early RBs. The game is so changed that it's difficult to find real points of reference that are fair to both groups.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Also anyone that watched/studied those Cowboys teams knows their passing game > running in terms of winning. Smith was steady & consistent. Very good balance, tough & strong as hell, esp in the lower half. Those teams were really fun to watch. Turner w Harper, Irv, Williams & Novacek.

I loved watching Harper play & thought he had some Pippen in him. Harper avg 16.3, 16.1, 21.6, 24.9 & 18 TD's from 91-94 playing as 3rd/4th target.

 

[fnordcircle]

I hope BB is in the top 100.

 

[Deus Irae]

Here's the NFL article on the running backs. It's got 2 of the coaches listed, as well. I won't spoil that part for those who'd rather read about it:

NFL 100 All-Time Team running backs revealed

 

[goheels22002]

Hopefully it is Belichick ...
Bill would probably vote for Curly I think.

Bill the GM would vote for Shemp.

 

[lancerman]

Honestly not sure what rings has to do w this? This is abt a individual greatness.

Also Faulk's "4 year peak" are as good/better than anyone on the list. More than a few guys on that list have short career. And you're either forgetting or don't know Faulk was underutilized in his early career.

All due respect to Dutch Clark he played 7 years. 2772 rushing yard, 36 TD fumbled 42 times

Also LT's peak year blow that list out the water. Sure different eras, I absolutely understand but I have a hard time buying this list. It's all opinion, I get it but I question anyone's credibility touting Clark > LT or many others.

Because

1. rings are the ultimate goal, it’s going to be a huge part of the QB list. Marino is the only one I can see getting on it without any.

2. a lot of those guys played in an era where RB was many times more important and valuable than the 2000’s. You could argue some of those guys were more important to their team than the QB, and they translates to titles.

Dutch Clark played in the infancy of the NFL where that was certainly true. He has 2x more First Team All Pros than LT. He was the leading scorer on the team and league leading scorer the year his team won the title and easily the most important player on it. He was an inaugural member of the College AND Pro Football HOF. He was so prolific that the AP (same group that makes All Pro’s and the MVP) named him “Football’s Man of the Decade for the 1930’s). Also he was a two player, could block, and also was a notably good punter in his era. Oh and he could pass. He was arguably the first complete player in the infancy of the game.

This is why you have historians deciding this list instead of modern fans who have an affinity for the players they watched and then compare older guys by looking blindly at stats from nearly 100 years ago.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Also anyone that watched/studied those Cowboys teams knows their passing game > running in terms of winning. Smith was steady & consistent. Very good balance, tough & strong as hell, esp in the lower half. Those teams were really fun to watch. Turner w Harper, Irv, Williams & Novacek.

I loved watching Harper play & thought he had some Pippen in him. Harper avg 16.3, 16.1, 21.6, 24.9 & 18 TD's from 91-94 playing as 3rd/4th target.

Those Dallas teams were so good it was frightening.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Because

1. rings are the ultimate goal, it’s going to be a huge part of the QB list. Marino is the only one I can see getting on it without any.

2. a lot of those guys played in an era where RB was many times more important and valuable than the 2000’s. You could argue some of those guys were more important to their team than the QB, and they translates to titles.

Dutch Clark played in the infancy of the NFL where that was certainly true. He has 2x more First Team All Pros than LT. He was the leading scorer on the team and league leading scorer the year his team won the title and easily the most important player on it. He was an inaugural member of the College AND Pro Football HOF. He was so prolific that the AP (same group that makes All Pro’s and the MVP) named him “Football’s Man of the Decade for the 1930’s). Also he was a two player, could block, and also was a notably good punter in his era. Oh and he could pass. He was arguably the first complete player in the infancy of the game.

This is why you have historians deciding this list instead of modern fans who have an affinity for the players they watched and then compare older guys by looking blindly at stats from nearly 100 years ago.

Rings are a result of team success. This is an individual honor. Hence the greatest players at their position. That's not hard to understand so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up rings.

I could just as easily say this panel is bias looking at their picks. LT is 3rd ALL TIME w 162 TDs. Excluding him for someone like Clark is joke. Peterson as well.

 

[Ring 6]

I am sorry maybe i am biased, but how can number one be anyone else than BB..?

Because there was football before 2000, many coaches practically invented things teams are still doing today, and coaching in 1950 was entirely different than coaching today. So there are more criteria than who won the most Super Bowls.

 

[Ring 6]

Here's the NFL article on the running backs. It's got 2 of the coaches listed, as well. I won't spoil that part for those who'd rather read about it:

NFL 100 All-Time Team running backs revealed

Those are the right 2.

 

[BelichicksHoodie]

Because there was football before 2000, many coaches practically invented things teams are still doing today, and coaching in 1950 was entirely different than coaching today. So there are more criteria than who won the most Super Bowls.

You could also argue given how many more teams are in the league, the salary cap, etc. Etc. That it’s much harder to win championships and games in this era. It can really go both ways which is why I’ve never been a fan of these “best of all time” lists. I’d much prefer best of this era or decade lists. It’s a lot easier to determine.