Brady named to NFL 100 All-Time team

[RobertWeathers]

How did he do before he matured and after he was a walking concussion? Odd way to look at.
For a 6 year run Aikman was as good as any QB in the nfl. That’s an accomplishment. Not everyone is Brady.

Better than Steve Young? No.

 

[patsfan13]

One critique of Marino he has a rep of not being a film nerd like Montana, Brady, Manning, IMO this didn't hurt him a lot in the regular season, but killed him in the playoffs.
Brees is more of a stat accumulator, sort of like a Don Sutton type, better but still, a lot of empty stats.

As far as judging players (generally) you look at guys who dominated their era and guys who changed the game. Unitas basically invented the 2 minute drill. Sorta like Cousy invented the point guard position in BBall. I will be fascinated to see who the panel selects. And their rationale.
Montana and Brady were always locks, The other locks IMO are Unitas, Graham and Baugh. That's 5 the other 5 will be fascinating.

As mentioned in this thread there are 20 other possibilities.

 

[Ring 6]

No. Check your facts . Aikman was never a league MVP or multiple SB MVP. Merry Xmas

Aikman was Sb mvp. Aikman was more instrumental to the success of his team than Bradshaw.

 

[Ring 6]

Better than Steve Young? No.

Comparable. And he beat him 3 sbs to 1.

 

[Biffins]

Your choice to divide quarterback eras into decades is completely arbitrary. Brees is the third best QB of the post-2004 era, and yes, I would be concerned if the third best QB of the 78-04 and 60ish-78 eras weren't considered.

Sure it’s arbitrary but you’re just being inconsistent. ‘78-04 is 26 years. QB careers span half that time or so.

My point was simply that the NFL has been around a long time. You’re trying to pick the best QBs from the 30s till now. If their are 8-9 slots then the once a decade is just convenient maths. You can change that to 2 every 2 decades but the point stands. And they will spread the picks out to get the best from each generation/era.

Now you may feel that the 3rd best QB in 2010s is a lot bigger accomplishment than the best of 40s or 50s or 2nd best from 60s etc (more competition etc) but the tone of the show so far says BB disagrees. He’s routinely picking the dominant players from previous eras over more recent 2nd/3rd best players

 

[Uptown]

How’d he get in before stalwarts such:

-Brock Assweiler
- EJ Manuel
- Nate “The Great” Peterman
- Akili Smith
- Andrew Walter
-Heath Shuler
- Rick Mirer
-Gary Huff

Who is constructing these lists?!?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Comparable. And he beat him 3 sbs to 1.

Saying Aikman is better than Steve Young screams of too much eggnog consumption.

Aikman was Sb mvp. Aikman was more instrumental to the success of his team than Bradshaw.

Aikman was never league MVP. Bradshaw has more SBs.

 

[RobertWeathers]

How’d he get in before stalwarts such:

-Brock Assweiler
- EJ Manuel
- Nate “The Great” Peterman
- Akili Smith
- Andrew Walter
-Heath Shuler
- Rick Mirer
-Gary Huff

Who is constructing these lists?!?

You forgot Jim Druckenmiller

 

[pencilneckgeek]

Just to use your italicized portion as a jumping off point:

No 21st century RB made the list. If people really want to consider that a problem, they should re-check every RB on the list that they think wasn't worthy, and then re-check EVERY other RB, not just the 21st century RBs.

No-brainer level choices who are not the "old-school" guys from well before the Super Bowl era:

Brown
Campbell
Smith
Sanders
****erson
Payton
Sayers
Simpson


So that leaves only 3 slots where you're even going to have the argument of "not a lock" or "from too far back":

Lenny Moore
Earl Clark
Marion Motley


But, even if you take all 3 off the list, you still don't just automatically jump to 21st century RBs. There are still all time greats like Marcus Allen, Tony Dorsett, Thurman Thomas and others (Walker, Czonka, Harris, ...) who'd have to be looked at. Hell, depending upon how you were weighting your criteria, you could easily argue for Bo Jackson.

So, sure, there are at least 3 21st century RBs who could be, and likely were, looked at seriously (Faulk, Tomlinson, Peterson). But I don't think that they are clear "mistakes" who'd absolutely and positively have gotten in if only the evaluators hadn't had some theoretical bias against the most modern RBs.

And that's just the RBs. I think one thing we've got going (and understandably so) is people with recency bias claiming that those without it are biased, while ignoring their own.

TBH, I haven't been following the NFL100 hype, b/c Hate, but that's a hell of a list. I don't know the old guys at all, but I would not be able to leave Marcus Allen off the list. They've compiled a good list, but I'd take him or Dorsett over OJ any day.

The nostalgia for the old players is understandable, but there is little question that the professionalization of the sport after the time of the merger and then FAcy has produced superior athletes and competition. To my mind, that deserves recognition, while keeping tabs on things like the Mel Blount rule and how the game changed to make things easier/harder on certain modern players.

 

[Ring 6]

Saying Aikman is better than Steve Young screams of too much eggnog consumption.


Aikman was never league MVP. Bradshaw has more SBs.

Didn’t say he was better than young. Said in his prime his numbers were comparable to anyone. And he out won young 3 rings to 1.
Didn’t say Aikman won a hardware count, said he was more instrumental to his teams success than Bradshaw.
All those statements are true.

you are talking out both sides of your mouth. Rings don’t matter compared to young but are all that matters compared to Bradshaw????

 

[RobertWeathers]

Didn’t say he was better than young. Said in his prime his numbers were comparable to anyone. And he out won young 3 rings to 1.
Didn’t say Aikman won a hardware count, said he was more instrumental to his teams success than Bradshaw.
All those statements are true.

you are talking out both sides of your mouth. Rings don’t matter compared to young but are all that matters compared to Bradshaw????

Bradshaw was a league MVP. His accomplishments were not just Super Bowl titles his performance vs DAL and LA only cemented his clutchness.

Young was a superior QB than Aikman. If you want to say they are comparable you are wrong but thats fine.

Are you saying Aikman's prime #s are comparable to the top QBs of all-time? Is that really your position?

 

[pencilneckgeek]

The QB list should be a very enlightening look into the overall approach taken by the evaluators. I think it's fair to say that a lot of QBs from earlier generations, even as recently as the 90's, would struggle in today's game. Elway, who was like Bledsoe in that he was playing during the transitory era where the deep pass and rocket arm was being replaced by the short-middle game and precision passing, couldn't make it in today's game. But I don't think that there's any question that some of today's best QBs would struggle playing in the days of bigger and "dirtier" hits, hands-on cornerbacks, and the like. Hell, we saw Peyton Manning struggling with just the CB part of that enough so his GM got the rules changed.

I think most of these QBs should be easy selections, and I've given my sure seven often. But I look forward to seeing how the selectors approached it, and any differences that may come about as a result.

Elway might not make it in the Walsh, McDaniels, Payton offenses that Montana and Young, Brady, and Brees thrived in, but he might be a superstar in the mode of Jackson or Wilson of the hypermodern era.

 

[Doctor DDS]

Aikman is an interesting case. His whole career is really based on a 6 year run. Statistically he was not that impressive but he was the leader of an all-time dynasty and stepped up his play in the post season. His playoff QB rating was over 100 on all 3 Super Bowl runs. HOFer but not close to the top 10.

 

[libra957]

Safe to say this is a controversial selection, there's probably gonna be an uproar cause they left out somebody.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

78 is kinda important. Well known OL'm couldn't use their hands/open their hands or extend their arms before 78. Forget abt extend they couldn't really move their arms away their body w/out getting called. Even in a T-Rex way that WRs will use to push off without getting a flag. It was almost 100% abt footwork & movement skills. Obviously speaks to what they could do in pass pro. DL'm had a huge advantage to say the least.

That's just one of the problems with this list. Also if it's truly the best ever you can't cut positions at 7 or 10. You vote the best in & let chips fall. A lot of the players are fine & would make any list but there have been glaring holes that can't be ignored. It's much more of a "let's not forget" list which is fine. Its obviously generating some buzz. Nothing wrong with Gil, Bill & others giving their opinion.

'78 is also the year that the illegal contact rule was introduced. It dwarfs 2005 in terms of how it changed the game to favor passing with those two rule changes.

 

[fightingirish595]

Aikman was Sb mvp. Aikman was more instrumental to the success of his team than Bradshaw.

bradshaw was a big reason the Steelers won their 3rd and 4th superbowls

 

[Ring 6]

bradshaw was a big reason the Steelers won their 3rd and 4th superbowls

Sure he was but aikman was a bigger part of the cowboys success

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

'78 is also the year that the illegal contact rule was introduced. It dwarfs 2005 in terms of how it changed the game to favor passing with those two rule changes.

I probably should have brought that up but was speaking to that relationship on the los which was brutal for all involved. IC definitely effected that as well.

Those 2 changes are absolutely monumental but didn't effect stats like post-2004 when the league started to manufacture offensive explosion & efficiency. Football had a decent tick upwards from 78-81 but didn't look different for 2 decades.
For instance the difference from 1980 (5.8) to 2003 (6.0) the AY/A was miniscule.
2004 is when the league made a conscious effort to change the from a subjective pov enforcing rules from previous eras. Again there was a conscious effort from the top (league FO - refs) to bottom in terms of how they would enforce the rules. From 2004 (6.0) - 2018 (7.4) is where the league really took off in terms of explosive plays/efficiency. And it's still going to a degree. If you look at the start of those changes that's when we had the start of & peaks from guys like Brees, Rodgers & others.

Both changes were huge but 2004 was just enormous bc of rules & a mindset of how the league wanted to look going forward.

 

[Brewskies]

Who didn't expect Brady to be selected?
No surprise. Many players and coaches help him gain this accomplishment those that come to mind are, Welker, Edelman, Gronk, Moss, McDaniels, and Belichick. This is true for most QBs, others create the record.

 

[h0c2000]

bradshaw was a big reason the Steelers won their 3rd and 4th superbowls

If I had a vote, Bradshaw would be in for many reasons. I'd have Bradshaw over Manning, Staubach and Marino. Terry is vastly undervalued in NFL history.