NFL 100 team

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

3 minutes ago, Split the Sticks said:

I agree. I know back in the day in Peyton's hay day, he'd come in to New England in January and get his clock cleaned. It makes a big diff in January

Peyton got his clock cleaned a lot in outdoor conditions, just like Brees has as well. It shouldn't be a blemish on their overall greatness tbh.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

4 hours ago, showtime said:

No disrespect to the older guys, but they're just not as good as players in this era for the most part.  It's kind of like Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain in the NBA.  Chamberlain averaged like 50 points per game and 25 rebounds per game.  Wouldn't come close to those numbers in today's game.  He just played in an era with a bunch of athletes he vastly outclassed and was way bigger than most people.  I respect those guys for everything they did and building the foundation of the league, but I digress.

I hear what you're saying, though.

It's about domination of era though. And who knows if Rodgers would have been the same player in the 40s if he was born in the 20s. Who knows if Otto Graham would have dominated if he was in his 20s today, and had all of the advantages that modern players have had in terms of coaching, training, and nutrition, and playing conditions. 

If that's the logic you want to envoke, then no one before 2000 or whatever should even be considered as greatest of all time. The game has changed in the last twenty years in many ways. 

Edited December 28, 2019 by PapaShogun

[TecmoSuperJoe]

3 hours ago, Jlowe22 said:

Yet Montana, and now Brady are considered GOATs instead of Graham.  Either that kind of dominance is much harder to achieve in later eras, or Graham was the best QB to ever live, and likely to live.

Ehhh. Graham was named to the 75th anniversary team. I think people probably put Brady or Montana above them because they weren't actually around to see Graham play and/or can't appreciate the game from that long ago essentially believing it's a joke/thinking those players are irrelevant. 

[showtime]

11 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

It's about domination of era though. And who knows if Rodgers would have been the same player in the 40s if he was born in the 20s. Who knows if Otto Graham would have dominated if he was in his 20s today, and had all of the advantages that modern players have had in terms of coaching, training, and nutrition, and playing conditions. 

If that's the logic you want to envoke, then no one before 2000 or whatever should even be considered as greatest of all time. The game has changed in the last twenty years in many ways. 

Just to go back to my NBA reference, that's what a lot of people actually do.  Pretty much from maybe the very late 70's onward, but mostly the 80's and present.  That's why a lot of list are filled with names like:  Jordan, Magic, Kareem, LeBron, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, etc.

Football is pretty much the same to me.  Guys who played in the 80's - present are pretty much better than most guys who played in the 50's or 60's.

So yes, Steve Young, Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers > Otto Graham.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

2 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Drew Brees not on this list is just criminal, I don't care what era they're trying to represent, it's just criminal. Guy is a top 5 QB all-time, if not higher. You can't leave him off of it because of feel-good stories like Sammy Baugh, Otto Graham and Brett Favre. I hate how much anti-recency bias these lists have. First it was LT, then it was TO/Calvin Johnson, and now Brees.

Brees didn't dominant his peers like Graham or Baugh did though. It's not a feel good story. It's reality. Favre was MVP three straight years, and was a champion. He was arguably the best QB in the 90s with Steve Young. Brees has usually been considered 2nd fiddle behind Brady and Manning's accomplishments. Probably neck and neck with Rodgers for third. Brees has never been the clear cut best of his era. 

That being said, I did put him on my list. Still, I could see why the panel didn't put Brees on. 

Edited December 28, 2019 by PapaShogun

[TecmoSuperJoe]

5 hours ago, showtime said:

Just to go back to my NBA reference, that's what a lot of people actually do.  Pretty much from maybe the very late 70's onward, but mostly the 80's and present.  That's why a lot of list are filled with names like:  Jordan, Magic, Kareem, LeBron, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, etc.

Football is pretty much the same to me.  Guys who played in the 80's - present are pretty much better than most guys who played in the 50's or 60's.

So yes, Steve Young, Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers > Otto Graham.

The NFL isn't the NBA. Even so, the logic still applies. There is no way of knowing how well athletes would perform in different eras with different advantages and disadvantages. And the point of this list is to see who dominated their era (which is really the closest you can do to making comparisons across generations), not wax nostalgically over modern day athletes the last 20 or 30 years. 

But I said before this aired, in this very thread, that people would get triggered. Because they just can't wrap their head around the concept of domination by era. They can't stop living in fantasy football land, and/or can't have historical perspective when it came to training, playing condition, nutrition, and game evolution of yesteryear. How do you know Brees would be the same player in the 40s that he is today without all of the advantages he had in everything I listed? The answer is you don't know. Just like we don't know how Otto Graham would perform if he was 25 years old today with exposure to modern day resources. 

Edited December 28, 2019 by PapaShogun

[RamblinMan99]

18 hours ago, ChazStandard said:

Ah yes, Wes Welker, Julian Edelman and Antonion Brown. The big three.

Brady was lucky to play with those guys his whole career. He never had to struggle by with mediocre players, like Roethlisberger did.

Ben had Hines Ward in his last years (not to mention that Ward was more of a blocking receiver), and guys like Mike Wallace, Cedrick Wilson, and Antwann Randle El were all good but not great players.  

Wallace in particular had the potential to be great, but didn't have any work ethic. 

I will admit to how Randle El's dual capabilities as quarterback and receiver really came out for Pittsburgh in the postseason.  

Still, they couldn't compare to the guys Brady has had over the years.  

Welker will be in the Hall of Fame, so will Edelman.  Amendola was also outstanding for New England.  They got him because the had just lost Welker at that time, and he more than fulfilled his purpose when he was at New England.  

As for Antonio Brown, he came a long way when he played for Pittsburgh.  Ben really produced Brown.  You would have to watch that guy's entire career to know how average he really was at the beginning.  

He played in the slot behind Mike Wallace in the beginning years, and Brown worked very hard to get to the level he's at today.   

The one consistent guy that Ben had to throw to over the years was Heath Miller, who is without a doubt the most underrated TE of the last 20 years.  

So no, Ben really didn't have near as many standout receivers that Brady has had.  

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by RamblinMan99

[RamblinMan99]

17 hours ago, lancerman said:

No that's another lie. The first judge struck it down. Then the appeal was 2 judges vs 1. So literally 2 judges sided with Brady and 2 with the NFL. Also they upheld it because of the NFL CBA, not because of the facts of the case. This was said in the ruling if you paid attention, actually knew what you were talking about and weren't just crap posting you would know that. 

So in this whole exercise you have shown a comically low understanding of football, of the facets of being a QB, and just made up lie after lie to support your argument. Demonstrable lies at that

I can't take someone seriously who's entire argument hinges on other people being uninformed and hoping they don't get caught in lies. People have lost credibility on here for far less. 

Dude, they checked 11 footballs from the Patriot's sidelines at halftime and they were all under-inflated and didn't meet the league standard.  

They had witnesses attest to McNally, the locker room assistant, deflating footballs prior to the game and Brady had full knowledge of the situation.  

There is taped footage of McNally taking the footballs from the officials without receiving permission and had them in the bathroom all prior to the start of the game.  

You're talking about court appeals, and I'm talking about tangible evidence.  

Just face it.  Your boy Brady is guilty.  He guilty.  

[RussianJag]

Meh Brees is a stat padder. Never been the best QB. Maybe I’d replace Elway with Brees, but Elways been to 5 SBs and won 2 of them. And pretty sure still has more wins and an MVP. 

Really don’t know how some people call him the GOAT... 

[Jlowe22]

6 hours ago, lancerman said:

He’s not. Brees was never considered better than Brady or Manning during this era. And quite frankly, most of this most recent decade, Rodgers was viewed as better as well. 
 

Rodgers had a really high peak for a few years.  Some people even thought he was better than Brady.  But outside those 3-4 years, I’d say Brees has been better.

With Rodgers though, he still has a lot of time left to move up the list.  

[lancerman]

6 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Wow the best QB of the 1950's?!? What an incredible accomplishment!

I'm sorry, but I can't take QB's seriously from the 50's when they throw for 11 TD's and are 1st-team All-Pro. That's a joke to me.

Favre is fine because his ceiling was probably the highest of any QB to ever play the game, even if he was the ultimate gunslinger, but Brees is seriously underrated simply because his entire career he's played WITH:

1. The greatest QB to ever play (Brady)
2. The most talented QB to ever play (Rodgers)
3. The 2nd best QB to ever play (Manning)

All at the same time. And Brees is basically breaking all of their records, all while basically not putting up any elite stats until his 5th year in the NFL. There should be major recency bias with QB's IMO because the best QB's to ever play the position have played within the last 10-15 years for the large majority. That same thing can't be said about other positions like RB, S, CB, etc. where guys like Jim Brown, Walter Peyton, Ronnie Lott and Deion all played in the 80's or earlier. 

I mean you can bring up stats but I can bring up how QB’s today benefit from state of the art offenses that didn’t exist in the early days of football, leader quality WR’s, several generations of rule changes designed around amplifying the passing game including penalties on roughing the passer, holdings on receivers, technology like radios in helmets which basically made Goff look like an MVP candidate last year, better equipment like the gloves WR’s use and better cleats, playing on better fields, etc. 

So I can easily turn that around and say QB’s who played today have so many advantages and breaks in their favor that stats should be discounted. Unless you really think Matt Ryan and Matt Stafford are better than Joe Montana and Johnny Unitas. 
 

Brees also broke record that was broken a few years ago by a Manning, and a few years before then by Farve. And another QB in this generation also passed both those guys. Those records are more generational. Brees is the newest QB to have a full career under the most recent rules who also played in a dome. 

You can’t hang it all on stats. 
 

It’s not remotely an apples to apples comparison. Marino? Sure because his numbers surpass his era and look like modern numbers. Brees who statistically is roughly in the sane spot as two of his peers albeit slightly ahead? No it’s different 

 

[lancerman]

6 hours ago, showtime said:

What weight is that supposed to hold?

And even if we leave Graham on the list.  Brees is a better player than both Elway and Favre.

Farve has 3 MVP’s, a much better peak, went to a second a SB, has the Iron Man record and had all the same records when he retired that Brees has despite playing most of his career pre 04

[lancerman]

5 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Peyton got his clock cleaned a lot in outdoor conditions, just like Brees has as well. It shouldn't be a blemish on their overall greatness tbh.

If you are going to argue stats it should be since statistically nearly every QB has better numbers in domes vs outdoors. Especially if you are comparing their numbers to peers like Brady and Rodgers who play outdoors in very cold conditions most of the year and play a schedule with Midwest and North East teams that have similar environments. 

[lancerman]

26 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

Rodgers had a really high peak for a few years.  Some people even thought he was better than Brady.  But outside those 3-4 years, I’d say Brees has been better.

With Rodgers though, he still has a lot of time left to move up the list.  

Since Rodgers was a starter most people would have put him over Brees every year but 09, 17, 18, and 19. Maybe 08... but he was lighting it up as a first tear starter. 
 

So basically this entire decade until his 17 injury Rodgers was considered better and quite frankly Brees in those years simply got better a team and had the load taken off of him more. 
 

Rodgers is much more likely to make the all decade team than Brees for instance and outside of two years, they almost exclusively overlapped this decade 

[RamblinMan99]

36 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

Rodgers had a really high peak for a few years.  Some people even thought he was better than Brady.  But outside those 3-4 years, I’d say Brees has been better.

With Rodgers though, he still has a lot of time left to move up the list.  

Brees is better than Brady by a country mile.  

Not going to say whether or not Brees is better than Rodgers, but Rodgers is one of the most, if not the most, naturally talented quarterback to play in the NFL.