2018 NFL Top 100 Players

[Cheesehawk]

4 minutes ago, Danger said:

Receivers definitely above him IMO

1. Jerry Rice
2. TO
2. Moss
4. Marvin Harrison
4. Larry Fitzgerald
6. Andre Johnson
7. Torry Holt
8. Cris Carter

After that there are probably a half dozen I'd mix him in with. Including the likes of Steve Smith, AnQuan Boldin, Michael Irvin, Isaac Bruce, Steve Smith, and Reggie Wayne

You would mix Calvin Johnson in with the likes of Steve Smith, Anquan Boldin, Michael Irvin, and Reggie Wayne?

Did we watch the same guy?

[TXsteeler]

Just now, packerrfan74 said:

He'll need a big season, but it's definitely possible

He probably won't do it but he was on pace last year before his injury and he surpassed it in 2015 and was 11 yards off in 2014 so it's not even as out of the way as it looks.

[Danger]

Just now, packerrfan74 said:

You would mix Calvin Johnson in with the likes of Steve Smith, Anquan Boldin, Michael Irvin, and Reggie Wayne?

Did we watch the same guy?

You don't judge a player's career simply based off of what he could do on any given play. If we did then Michael Vick is the GOAT.

[Cheesehawk]

Just now, Danger said:

You don't judge a player's career simply based off of what he could do on any given play. If we did then Michael Vick is the GOAT.

I see there is no further point in arguing this with you. Agree to disagree. It wasn't a case of what he COULD do with Calvin Johnson.. it's what he DID do. And he played at an all-time level for 9 seasons. Top 5.

[TXsteeler]

6 minutes ago, Danger said:

You don't judge a player's career simply based off of what he could do on any given play. If we did then Michael Vick is the GOAT.

Just now, packerrfan74 said:

I see there is no further point in arguing this with you. Agree to disagree. It wasn't a case of what he COULD do with Calvin Johnson.. it's what he DID do. And he played at an all-time level for 9 seasons. Top 5.

 

Sounds like you guys are both just using different criteria to rank them and giving different things precedence, and both of those conversations/lists are valuable in their own right. A RB who averages 1900 yards rushing a season for 5 years and retires early, and a RB who averages 1200 for 14 are both great players and in different ways they are both better and it's hard to objectively rank them together. I feel like CJ vs Steve Smith and Reggie Wayne is a similar story.

[Danger]

Just now, TXsteeler said:

 

Sounds like you guys are both just using different criteria to rank them and giving different things precedence, and both of those conversations/lists are valuable in their own right. A RB who averages 1900 yards rushing a season for 5 years and retires early, and a RB who averages 1200 for 14 are both great players and in different ways they are both better and it's hard to objectively rank them together. I feel like CJ vs Steve Smith and Reggie Wayne is a similar story.

My criteria for "greatness" so to speak

1: The player must be considered "Elite" at their position for the better part of a decade
2: The player must play at a "high level" for the majority of the length of a career expected out of that position (runningback 10 years or so, WR - 13 or so, QB 15 or so)

The criteria for greatness is even higher than that of being in the HoF. We're talking about the best to ever do it, not just Hall of Fame. Calvin Johnson had number 1, but when his career didn't last very long compared to a lot of players at his position he doesn't fulfill my 2nd criteria. Calvin absolutely should be in the HoF, but I in no way can justify him being top 5 given the brief duration of his career.

[TXsteeler]

4 minutes ago, Danger said:

My criteria for "greatness" so to speak

1: The player must be considered "Elite" at their position for the better part of a decade
2: The player must play at a "high level" for the majority of the length of a career expected out of that position (runningback 10 years or so, WR - 13 or so, QB 15 or so)

The criteria for greatness is even higher than that of being in the HoF. We're talking about the best to ever do it, not just Hall of Fame. Calvin Johnson had number 1, but when his career didn't last very long compared to a lot of players at his position he doesn't fulfill my 2nd criteria. Calvin absolutely should be in the HoF, but I in no way can justify him being top 5 given the brief duration of his career.

As a fun little thought experiment though, If we could somehow in an alternate reality have a 1 year all time NFL tournament with a draft where all players are in their primes and such, how many WR's would be picked before Calvin Johnson in your opinion? I would say two.

[Danger]

Just now, TXsteeler said:

As a fun little thought experiment though, If we could somehow in an alternate reality have a 1 year all time NFL tournament with a draft where all players are in their primes and such, how many WR's would be picked before Calvin Johnson in your opinion? I would say two.

Jerry Rice, TO, and Randy Moss.

[TXsteeler]

1 minute ago, Danger said:

Jerry Rice, TO, and Randy Moss.

Really, TO over CJ for one year? TO's prime was longer but not as statistically great as CJ's imo, and then there's the attitude stuff. Although some could argue that TO was more passionate about the game than CJ.

[Danger]

Just now, TXsteeler said:

Really, TO over CJ for one year? TO's prime was longer but not as statistically great as CJ's imo, and then there's the attitude stuff. Although some could argue that TO was more passionate about the game than CJ.

If you ask me, TO played more physically after the catch than CJ. CJ has size for sure, as well as catch radius. 

There are two other names currently playing that in such a scenario you'd look at taking early. AB and Julio Jones.

[Cheesehawk]

4 hours ago, Danger said:

If you ask me, TO played more physically after the catch than CJ. CJ has size for sure, as well as catch radius. 

There are two other names currently playing that in such a scenario you'd look at taking early. AB and Julio Jones.

Woah. He may look at taking them early but certainly you wouldn’t. They haven’t hit their 13 year quota. 

[Danger]

6 minutes ago, packerrfan74 said:

Woah. He may look at taking them early but certainly you wouldn’t. They haven’t hit their 13 year quota. 

lol.

There's a difference between measuring their career and looking at them under a microscope. If you're doing the latter, you're all time team will likely consist of no one before the 1990's.

[game3525]

5 hours ago, packerrfan74 said:

You would mix Calvin Johnson in with the likes of Steve Smith, Anquan Boldin, Michael Irvin, and Reggie Wayne?

Did we watch the same guy?

Steve Smith and Michael Irvin I could see, but putting Boldin and Wayne up there with Calvin is nonsense. 

[Hunter2_1]

18 hours ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

- No, he's not, yes he had about 4 dominant years but no that does not put him in the same breath as even a Bruce Smith, Warren Sapp or John Randle, let alone a Reggie White or Lawrence Taylor

- Come on bro, I saw the exact same guy, he was pedestrian, he had little to no impact (or godliness) in those games. Sorry 11 tackles in 5 games is not worthy of being on this list

- This and you are an example of getting caught into the moment and forgetting how historic this league really is and not respecting the magnitude of the players who've dominated years before.

 

But are you forgetting what he's like when on the field and fit? When was the last time we saw a season from a defensive player like his 2014 season? If you think he wasn't as dominant as say, Sapp or Randle, then I can only assume you didn't take the time to watch him.

[MSURacerDT55]

17 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

But are you forgetting what he's like when on the field and fit? When was the last time we saw a season from a defensive player like his 2014 season? If you think he wasn't as dominant as say, Sapp or Randle, then I can only assume you didn't take the time to watch him.

Horrible argument hoss, you should stop. You are basically saying dominant for the sake for being dominant, im talking about doing that for a sustained 10- 15 year a career. There have been plenty of guys who were dominant for a few years, when Watt does this for at least 10 years then will I consider him with those other legit greats. In laymans terms, im not a prisoner of the moment.