This is really bad argument because that list was meant to be era agnostic. Dutch Clark legitimately has a case for being the overall best player for the first 25 years of the NFL. It was either him or Hutson. Also he’s getting in the list for his overall ability because he passed, ran, tackled on defense, blocked and called his own plays. Him Hutson, Baugh, and Luckman are the most important players are for the first quarter of the sports history. It’s impossible to leave someone like him off the list because LT or AP had a really good 5 year stretch in an era where RB’s were less important. Like it sucks that he kinda got stuck in a box with the way they formatted the list as a pure RB, but there was no way you could make a 100 year list and leave him off. Like the AP literally named him the best overall football player of the 30’s. Between Brady, Manning, Moss, TO, Gonzalez, Ogden, Faneca, Lewis, and Reed..... idk if LT even would be top 5 of the 2000’s if you remove positional value.
The point of the list was to be era agnostic. There were always going to be issues with comparing earlier guys that weren’t as specialized and did more overall to players who stuck to one position and excelled at it.
It's not a bad argument at all. You can be one of the best of your era and not a top 100 player. They're not mutually exclusive.
I absolutely love Sid and actually have him borderline top 10 but wouldn't bat an eye if someone else didn't. You wouldn't automatically include him. Same with Baugh and Hutson. Hutson is one of the few old timers that legitimately belongs in these arguments but again there's 10-15 guys that could go in front of him and I wouldn't be mad at.
Again you can be the best of you're era and still well behind other guys. They're not mutually exclusive.
I understand what the list was trying to accomplish. It tried way too hard including some of the old timers. I have no problem with Clark. Easily one of the 10 best players of his era, imo. At the same time I don't think he's a top 15 RB. That, like most positions are stacked when you talk about the best of the best. The top 100 players of all-time. No way I'm taking him over Faulk, LT or Peterson and about 20 others.
Btw that's disrespectful or ignorant to say "5 year stretch". Those mentioned above dominated their position for almost 10 years. In a time with much better and more competition. I mean to each his own but if you really think Clark was a better runner than those guys I don't know what to say. I guess just agree to disagree.
Any time you do something like this it should be ...
present to 1978-9
1980 to 2004-6
2006 to present
Anything before 1978-9 is absolutely eye of the beholder imo. Almost half an offense was handicapped to a huge degree. Not to mention other changes. Just a completely different time.
I absolutely love the old timers but context is needed more than ever. Love watching and reading we I can. I appreciate that era a great deal.
Tiers off the top. Probably forgetting some.
1A
Brady, Manning, Montana
1B
Young, Rodgers, Brees
Captain America, Johnny U, Jergenson (personal fav), Luckman, Starr, Marino, R Wilson
2
Moon, Fran, Favre, Y.A. , Baugh, Warner, Otto, Cunningham, Romo
3
Elway, Bradshaw, Big Ben, Mcnair, Kelly, Rivers, Vinny
I think the geezers belong in some areas, others not so much.
