- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Messages
- 10,325
- Reaction score
- 11,162
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.some really great analysis with the two of them on the Belistrator, plus their interaction and mutual respect is outstanding.
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.
I know I've been killing this list from day 1 but it seems it's actually getting worse.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.
I think he just confused Billick and Belichick. If you look at the people he was thanking, Billick fitted the timeline in his speech.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
Is there a link or something?
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.
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.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.
Maybe I am but I'm sorry you're wrong if you think Buchanan or White were dominate.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.