Ed Reed and BB on NFL top 100

[n6249c]

some really great analysis with the two of them on the Belistrator, plus their interaction and mutual respect is outstanding.

 

[Keyser Söze]

Belichick pitching a tent in his pants talking about Ed Reed. He was an incredible player.

 

[patsfan13]

This whole series has been great, so far. First 2 Patriots mentioned tonight M Haynes and A Vinatieri.

All the players that have been live in studio have tons of respect for BB and his comments parising them mean a lot to the players.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Thread of the Boomer 100 list. It's pretty terrible. Probably should have just done best of the best from different eras. This is embarrassing.

 

[PP2]

some really great analysis with the two of them on the Belistrator, plus their interaction and mutual respect is outstanding.

Reed's respect of BB is so high, he accidentally thanked him during his HOF induction, and thanked him before thanking his own coach:

Ed Reed accidentally thanks Bill Belichick during his Hall of Fame speech and John Harbaugh's reaction is priceless

 

[primetime]

Thread of the Boomer 100 list. It's pretty terrible. Probably should have just done best of the best from different eras. This is embarrassing.

Lechler was a great punter but I'm legitimately baffled at how anyone could consider him one of the 100 greatest players of all-time. Hekker's probably just as good as Lechler was as a punter and he has the trick QB thing, but he isn't 30 yet so...

But is the implication here that you would have traded Darrelle Revis (evidently not one of the greatest players of all-time), Champ Bailey, Adrian Peterson, Ladainian Tomlinson, Michael Strahan, Warren Sapp, DeMarcus Ware, Brian Dawkins, etc. for Shane Lechler and the team getting Lechler would come out on top? I just don't get how you pick a second punter over any of those guys from the same era.

(Also I'd think they'd at least have picked Tasker over a second damn punter if they were going to do a "finest in their field" type thing which I can at least buy in something like this.)

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Lechler was a great punter but I'm legitimately baffled at how anyone could consider him one of the 100 greatest players of all-time. Hekker's probably just as good as Lechler was as a punter and he has the trick QB thing, but he isn't 30 yet so...

But is the implication here that you would have traded Darrelle Revis (evidently not one of the greatest players of all-time), Champ Bailey, Adrian Peterson, Ladainian Tomlinson, Michael Strahan, Warren Sapp, DeMarcus Ware, Brian Dawkins, etc. for Shane Lechler and the team getting Lechler would come out on top? I just don't get how you pick a second punter over any of those guys from the same era.

(Also I'd think they'd at least have picked Tasker over a second damn punter if they were going to do a "finest in their field" type thing which I can at least buy in something like this.)

I know I've been killing this list from day 1 but it seems it's actually getting worse.

No Revis, Champ or Sherman who covered the greatest WRs of all-time, when the ball is being passed the more than ever. And thrown like a football not when QBs were passing like they were throwing a dodge ball.

The DT might be the worst of the group? They seriously think those players would work in any era? I'd take Atkins, Wilfork, Sapp & abt 5 others over most of that list.

12 RBs LOL??? Let's make an all-time list, ignore the best players & put in 12 RBs. Idk Idk.

They really put Dutch Clark > LT, Faulk, Peterson & others. Like E James, R Watters & other tier 2 guys wouldn't blow them away.

I get it, it's a boomer list but easily one of the worst I've ever seen. No need try & sell this as the best of the best bc it's obviously NOT that. Should have just done an old timers list before the 80's.

 

[primetime]

I know I've been killing this list from day 1 but it seems it's actually getting worse.

No Revis, Champ or Sherman who covered the greatest WRs of all-time, when the ball is being passed the more than ever. And thrown like a football not when QBs were passing like they were throwing a dodge ball.

The DT might be the worst of the group? They seriously think those players would work in any era? I'd take Atkins, Wilfork, Sapp & abt 5 others over most of that list.

12 RBs LOL??? Let's make an all-time list, ignore the best players & put in 12 RBs. Idk Idk.

They really put Dutch Clark > LT, Faulk, Peterson & others. Like E James, R Watters & other tier 2 guys wouldn't blow them away.

I get it, it's a boomer list but easily one of the worst I've ever seen. No need try & sell this as the best of the best bc it's obviously NOT that. Should have just done an old timers list before the 80's.

The old guys who played so long ago that no one alive can really remember them play who didn't make the 75 year team but made this one are the biggest headscratchers. It's a 70 year old voter going off his dad talking about Sammy Baugh or whatever.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

@The Brandon Five what exactly is confusing?

You're not as bad as @QuantumMechanic but you can use your words pal I won't bite.

 

[Betterthanmost]

Reed's respect of BB is so high, he accidentally thanked him during his HOF induction, and thanked him before thanking his own coach:

Ed Reed accidentally thanks Bill Belichick during his Hall of Fame speech and John Harbaugh's reaction is priceless

I think he just confused Billick and Belichick. If you look at the people he was thanking, Billick fitted the timeline in his speech.
edit, says that in article.

 

[Doctor DDS]

The panel decided to have every position represented so it is not necessarily the top 100 players of all time. If they did top 100 of all time they would end up with more QB's just like the yearly top 100 players in the league lists and there would likely be no special team players. I am fine with their thought process on the team makeup by position but do agree that they have not included nearly enough modern day players for my taste.

55 offensive players
39 defensive players
6 special teams

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Is there a link or something?

 

[SHOWTIME15]

I wish they would come up with an all-time team. All starters, no backups. Just the best at each position.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Is there a link or something?

 

[everlong]

I know I've been killing this list from day 1 but it seems it's actually getting worse.

No Revis, Champ or Sherman who covered the greatest WRs of all-time, when the ball is being passed the more than ever. And thrown like a football not when QBs were passing like they were throwing a dodge ball.

The DT might be the worst of the group? They seriously think those players would work in any era? I'd take Atkins, Wilfork, Sapp & abt 5 others over most of that list.

12 RBs LOL??? Let's make an all-time list, ignore the best players & put in 12 RBs. Idk Idk.

They really put Dutch Clark > LT, Faulk, Peterson & others. Like E James, R Watters & other tier 2 guys wouldn't blow them away.

I get it, it's a boomer list but easily one of the worst I've ever seen. No need try & sell this as the best of the best bc it's obviously NOT that. Should have just done an old timers list before the 80's.

Gen-Xer here.

I hate a lot of the list as well but I think you have to compare them as far as how dominant they were for their eras. LT, Faulk and Watt were the biggest omissions in my mind because they redefined the position in this century. I love Sapp not making it because Randell was a better player and person. Atkins and Wilfork, sorry but not nearly as dominating as Deacon Jones, Reggie White or Bruce Smith and all of those guys would dominate in this ear. Bill himself called Selmon the best 3-4 DE ever and he could play in this era. The other 3 guys are before my time and yes from an athletic standpoint those guys are better but I think just like 2000's have been snubbed so have the pre-merger players. It's a 100 year team with most of the players being in the 65-95 time period.

They should have had just one PK, P and return specialist so they could have spread those extra 3 players among the positions. I don't hate any of the selections they had at corner and safety. The issue is they only took 6 and 4 of each. It's a bad breakdown positionally and how do you represent 100 years with that small of a selection at those positions? Once again only one player played his entire career in this century.

Totally agree on the 12 RBs way too many. If you only do 10 and then you also take away the 3 specialist positions at that point you take those and you can add 5 DBs, or at least 2 more and use the other 3 at other positions.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Gen-Xer here.

I hate a lot of the list as well but I think you have to compare them as far as how dominant they were for their eras. LT, Faulk and Watt were the biggest omissions in my mind because they redefined the position in this century. I love Sapp not making it because Randell was a better player and person. Atkins and Wilfork, sorry but not nearly as dominating as Deacon Jones, Reggie White or Bruce Smith and all of those guys would dominate in this ear. Bill himself called Selmon the best 3-4 DE ever and he could play in this era. The other 3 guys are before my time and yes from an athletic standpoint those guys are better but I think just like 2000's have been snubbed so have the pre-merger players. It's a 100 year team with most of the players being in the 65-95 time period.

They should have had just one PK, P and return specialist so they could have spread those extra 3 players among the positions. I don't hate any of the selections they had at corner and safety. The issue is they only took 6 and 4 of each. It's a bad breakdown positionally and how do you represent 100 years with that small of a selection at those positions? Once again only one player played his entire career in this century.

Totally agree on the 12 RBs way too many. If you only do 10 and then you also take away the 3 specialist positions at that point you take those and you can add 5 DBs, or at least 2 more and use the other 3 at other positions.

Jones, White & Smith are DE's. I have np w any of them on the list. The rest are very debatable regardless of who says what w all due respect to the panel/Bill. I'd rather make up my own mind.

DT's - Buchanan, Greene, Olsen, White, Lilly, Page & Randle.

Again my point is which era would they dominate in bc they weren't dominating during this era at 240-260lbs.

I know a lot of people love to say "well if they had today's advancements etc" but truth is we don't know what kind of players they'd be w more muscle/weight etc.
Concerning that list, yes I'd absolutely take Wilfork, Geno, Donald & a few others over Olsen, White, Buchanan & Page.

I absolutely love Randy White despite him crossing the line . Talk abt a character. Easily one of the toughest guys in league history. Strongest too but again he weighed 260 soaking wet.

Selmon was a Great player but not in Watts, Smith tier imo. Selmon was the perfect player for Bill if you could draw one up but again I'm making my own mind up.

I get that we have to remember, respect these guys but they're ****ting on a ton of guys who deserve to be there. Guys like C Campbell who have 220+ SKs/TFL.

Trying to break it down to come up w a list like this will always leave a bad taste in someones mouth. I understand that completely but it's tough to take it seriously when its obvious they're giving out participation trophies here.

It's almost a "please remember/don't forget" these players type list.

 

[everlong]

Jones, White & Smith are DE's. I have np w any of them on the list. The rest are very debatable regardless of who says what w all due respect to the panel/Bill. I'd rather make up my own mind.

DT's - Buchanan, Greene, Olsen, White, Lilly, Page & Randle.

Again my point is which era would they dominate in bc they weren't dominating during this era at 240-260lbs.

I know a lot of people love to say "well if they had today's advancements etc" but truth is we don't know what kind of players they'd be w more muscle/weight etc.
Concerning that list, yes I'd absolutely take Wilfork, Geno, Donald & a few others over Olsen, White, Buchanan & Page.

I absolutely love Randy White despite him crossing the line . Talk abt a character. Easily one of the toughest guys in league history. Strongest too but again he weighed 260 soaking wet.

Selmon was a Great player but not in Watts, Smith tier imo. Selmon was the perfect player for Bill if you could draw one up but again I'm making my own mind up.

I get that we have to remember, respect these guys but they're ****ting on a ton of guys who deserve to be there. Guys like C Campbell who have 220+ SKs/TFL.

Trying to break it down to come up w a list like this will always leave a bad taste in someones mouth. I understand that completely but it's tough to take it seriously when its obvious they're giving out participation trophies here.

It's almost a "please remember/don't forget" these players type list.

I would eliminate somebody to let Watt in. If Donald was a few years further down the path probably the same. But there's no way Wilfork or Atkins should make the list. Neither won the DPOY or dominated at their position the way the other guys did. I think Buchanan is probably the guy I'd bump.

I think much like the boomers went to far in one direction you're going to far in the other for me.

The next session is really interesting because all of Gronk, Gonzalez, Walter Jones, Orlando Pace and Jonathan Ogdan should all be locks with Roaf and Hutchenson being strong candidates. If those 5 locks turn into 1 or 2 selections it will be as if not more egregious than LT, Faulk and Watt not making it.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

I would eliminate somebody to let Watt in. If Donald was a few years further down the path probably the same. But there's no way Wilfork or Atkins should make the list. Neither won the DPOY or dominated at their position the way the other guys did. I think Buchanan is probably the guy I'd bump.

I think much like the boomers went to far in one direction you're going to far in the other for me.

The next session is really interesting because all of Gronk, Gonzalez, Walter Jones, Orlando Pace and Jonathan Ogdan should all be locks with Roaf and Hutchenson being strong candidates. If those 5 locks turn into 1 or 2 selections it will be as if not more egregious than LT, Faulk and Watt not making it.

Maybe I am but I'm sorry you're wrong if you think Buchanan or White were dominate.

I mean its pretty obvious why Vince would never get the accolades he deserves when it comes to this stuff but answer me this question.

Who was better at his position when he played? Talk abt dominating? I'm not saying he or Geno belong on the list but those guys played & did it against much better players/comp who weighed 300+ lbs.

When it comes to the rest of the list I'm already seeing it as a joke for reasons mentioned. So I wont be shocked when/if the best aren't picked. WR/OT should be the biggest jokes considering what we've seen so far.

 

[everlong]

Maybe I am but I'm sorry you're wrong if you think Buchanan or White were dominate.

I mean its pretty obvious why Vince would never get the accolades he deserves when it comes to this stuff but answer me this question.

Who was better at his position when he played? Talk abt dominating? I'm not saying he or Geno belong on the list but those guys played & did it against much better players/comp who weighed 300+ lbs.

When it comes to the rest of the list I'm already seeing it as a joke for reasons mentioned. So I wont be shocked when/if the best aren't picked. WR/OT should be the biggest jokes considering what we've seen so far.

White and Buchanan were the two I would probably drop in favor of Watt and then probably one of Cortez Kennedy, Donald or as much as it pains me Sapp.

I think Vince was a great player, probably a HOFer. Was he better than Ngata? About the same and a really good comp. Better than Sam Adams, Tony Siragusa or Byant Young? Again in that same grouping. Honestly the best NT I have probably seen for one year was Ted Washington in 2003. That was IMO their best defense and it all started with Ted. I really don't think as good as Vince was he ever played as well as Ted did that year. Smerlas and I know you'll say he couldn't play in this era is historically underrated for that position.

I agree on the list being tainted with the 65-95 bias. I just don't think you can go the other way and put all modern players on the list. I'd have no problem moving out Buchanon and White as you suggested. Earl Cambell for a short sample was a great back but I was shocked both he and Gayle Sayers made the list. If you're putting them in then Watt 1000000% belongs on the list because you're saying peak over volume which I'm actually a big proponent of. Terrell Davis HOF in my mind, Jerome Bettis isn't. Faulk and LT had peak and volume plus the MVP awards. So all of their omissions are ridiculous.

Again on the DBs they just F'd up not letting enough of them in. The list is all worthy but if you had those extra slots to let in Champ Bailey and one of Sherman or Revis the list isn't nearly as bad.

 

[DarrylS]

This is one of those never ending threads that try to compare the game from a while ago to the game of today, the same argument about the Pats all time teams..

It is difficult to pass by RB's Jim Brown, Earl Campbell, Lenny Moore, Walter Payton, Sanders, Sayer etc.

It is as difficult to pass up LB's Bell, Bednarik, Butkus, Ham and Lambert etc. all of whom were dominant in their day and age..

The issue is that the game of today is nothing like the game of the 50's and 60's... how do you differentiate?? The NFL was a very good league during the 50's & 60's.. there were epic games on the B&W very small TV's..

The same is true of comparing Paul Brown and BB, completely different times and coaching scenarios, where do you begin??

Give NFL the props it deserves to make a pretty good effort, but as always it has flaws as all of this is subjective..