NFL Names 2010s All-Decade Teams

[BlaqOptic]

5 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

That's not the point even though Fred had done it for 3 years less then Mack, Mack only achieved 1 pro bowl out of those 3 to begin the decade. So why should longevity count so much or say his accolades were superior when Fred accomplished nearly as much in less time?

 

Because Mack was playing at an elite level but had more difficult competition, as others have said... Mack was competing against Prime Pouncey and Prime Mangold for Pro Bowl nominations. Not to mention your argument is PRO BOWLS and a Cowboys player as if Cowboys fans aren't voting on Pro Bowl more than Browns and Falcons fans...

[Calvert28]

3 minutes ago, BlaqOptic said:

Ryan Kalil was a 2x FT All-Pro... Fred had 1... Keep going, you're ALMOST there... 

With only 4 PBs compared to Fred's 5

Again, shorter time frame then all these guys, similar results aside from Pouncey. 

 

[Jakuvious]

14 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

That's not the point even though Fred had done it for 3 years less then Mack, Mack only achieved 1 pro bowl out of those 3 to begin the decade. So why should longevity count so much or say his accolades were superior when Fred accomplished nearly as much in less time?

 

Because he still played well in those years. There are more total years that he played good football. That still counts for something.

Let's drastically over-simplify things, for a moment. Let's say both had 3 elite years, their all-pro years. Mack had 3 additional great years, as a pro-bowler, while Frederick had 2. On top of that, even though he didn't make either, Mack still had 4 very good years on top of that. He was still playing well even if he didn't get an award.

So both, in very simple terms, had 3 elite years. But Mack had 3 great years to Frederick's 2. And Mack had 4 very good years to Frederick's 1. His overall impact and contribution for the decade exceeds Frederick's.

Your argument relies on an assumption of what Frederick would do had he played years he didn't. But he didn't play those. So Frederick has incompletes while Mack maybe has B's. And you're trying to argue efficiency when all-decade teams are inherently about bulk contribution and performance for that decade.

[Calvert28]

2 minutes ago, BlaqOptic said:

Because Mack was playing at an elite level but had more difficult competition, as others have said... Mack was competing against Prime Pouncey and Prime Mangold for Pro Bowl nominations. Not to mention your argument is PRO BOWLS and a Cowboys player as if Cowboys fans aren't voting on Pro Bowl more than Browns and Falcons fans...

Your haterade is showing.

As if the Eagles and Nick Foles dominant season as a backup had nothing to do with Kelce being selected in 2017 as an all-pro.

[BlaqOptic]

8 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

Your haterade is showing.

As if the Eagles and Nick Foles dominant season as a backup had nothing to do with Kelce being selected in 2017 as an all-pro.

This has literally already been disproven. All-Pro is voted on on Sunday of Week 17. Long before the Eagles playoff run. This is the second time I have conveyed this to you. Kelce was an All-Pro because he was better. Frederick was a Pro Bowler because he plays for America's team.

 

Edit: Plus, i fail to see how this would be an indictment against Kelce... 

Edited April 7, 2020 by BlaqOptic

[Calvert28]

1 minute ago, Jakuvious said:

Because he still played well in those years. There are more total years that he played good football. That still counts for something.

Let's drastically over-simplify things, for a moment. Let's say both had 3 elite years, their all-pro years. Mack had 3 additional great years, as a pro-bowler, while Frederick had 2. On top of that, even though he didn't make either, Mack still had 4 very good years on top of that. He was still playing well even if he didn't get an award.

So both, in very simple terms, had 3 elite years. But Mack had 3 great years to Frederick's 2. And Mack had 4 very good years to Frederick's 1. His overall impact and contribution for the decade exceeds Frederick's.

An all-decade or all-pro team is not about who had some good years. It's about defining seasons as players, greatest players of the decade, otherwise take all the prolonged seasons you have with Emmitt Smith and you have to say he is the GOAT running back. Are you willing to put that up for debate?

1 minute ago, Jakuvious said:

Your argument relies on an assumption of what Frederick would do had he played years he didn't. But he didn't play those. So Frederick has incompletes while Mack maybe has B's.

No it has not, have you not read a thing I said? I just explained it to you in the last post. 

[BlaqOptic]

6 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

An all-decade or all-pro team is not about who had some good years. It's about defining seasons as players, greatest players of the decade, otherwise take all the prolonged seasons you have with Emmitt Smith and you have to say he is the GOAT running back. Are you willing to put that up for debate?

No it has not, have you not read a thing I said? I just explained it to you in the last post. 

He had ONE defining season... Less than Pouncey, Kelce, Kalil, and Mangold. Again, even if you argue him over Mack you cannot argue him over those guys unless you're going to suddenly toss your argument out the window. He has 0 argument.

[Jakuvious]

11 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

An all-decade or all-pro team is not about who had some good years. It's about defining seasons as players, greatest players of the decade, otherwise take all the prolonged seasons you have with Emmitt Smith and you have to say he is the GOAT running back. Are you willing to put that up for debate?

That is a completely different argument. The all-decade team is specifically about total contributions that decade. Having more good seasons matters. It does. It always has. You being unwilling to accept that does not make it so. And this is consistent across the team. Gore is on there over Charles, Foster, Gurley, Bell, Elliott, all guys with more/equal pro-bowls and/or all-pros than him. They did as much in less time, right? It isn't about how much you do per years played. It's how much you do, period. Mack had more impactful seasons as a C (and as many great ones.) It's that simple.

[Calvert28]

3 minutes ago, BlaqOptic said:

He had ONE defining season... Less than Pouncey, Kelce, Kalil, and Mangold. Again, even if you argue him over Mack you cannot argue him over those guys unless you're going to suddenly toss your argument out the window. He has 0 argument.

One are you freaking kidding me? Seriously you are biased beyond measure, first off when did I ever say he should be voted in based on his all-pros alone? You keep switching up and picking different arguments I never put out there as being the main basis for how the voting should go.

[Calvert28]

16 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

That is a completely different argument. The all-decade team is specifically about total contributions that decade. Having more good seasons matters. It does. It always has. You being unwilling to accept that does not make it so. And this is consistent across the team. Gore is on there over Charles, Foster, Gurley, Bell, Elliott, all guys with more pro-bowls and/or all-pros than him. They did as much in less time, right? It isn't about how much you do per years played. It's how much you do, period. Mack had more impactful seasons as a C (and as many great ones.) It's that simple.

Then why would you not have a problem with Johnson being in over someone like Hopkins or actually AJ Green who has better total stats then?

Or Travis Kelce over Jason Witten?

Edited April 7, 2020 by Calvert28

[Jakuvious]

5 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

Then why would you not have a problem with Johnson being in over someone like Hopkins or actually AJ Green who has better total stats then?

I've already addressed this. Calvin has greater accolades over that time. You're arguing for Frederick, who has fewer accolades than Mack in fewer years. Calvin has more accolades than Hopkins in fewer years. Admittedly Calvin has 1 fewer pro-bowl than Green, but he has 3 first team all-pro bids while Green has none.

They are not comparable. Frederick achieved less in less time. Calvin achieved more than those guys in less time. Completely different.

EDIT: Since you added Kelce/Witten in an edit, it's exactly the same as Calvin. Kelce has 4 all-pro berths to Witten's 2. Accomplished more, it just happened to be in less time. NOT less accomplished in less time.

[Danger]

Alex Mack and Pouncey over Jason Kelce? I dunno about that one..

[Calvert28]

Just now, Jakuvious said:

I've already addressed this. Calvin has greater accolades over that time. You're arguing for Frederick, who has fewer accolades than Mack in fewer years. Calvin has more accolades than Hopkins in fewer years. Admittedly Calvin has 1 fewer pro-bowl than Green, but he has 3 first team all-pro bids while Green has none.

They are not comparable. Frederick achieved less in less time. Calvin achieved more than those guys in less time. Completely different.

MMMk, first you say it's about accolades with some years added on, then it slightly switched up with bulk contributions and performance now we're back to greater accolades. I think im dizzy from the circles yall are talking me in.

[Jakuvious]

2 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

MMMk, first you say it's about accolades with some years added on, then it slightly switched up with bulk contributions and performance now we're back to greater accolades. I think im dizzy from the circles yall are talking me in.

It's total contribution. You're arguing that a guy with less accolades and less contributions over a guy with more of both. I've been consistent, you're just unwilling to accept the reality that Mack did more for the decade, and the voters recognized that.

There are no circles. Accolades, contributions, performance, all basically the same concept, just different words. I can link you to a dictionary or a thesaurus if you need that explained.

[Calvert28]

1 minute ago, Jakuvious said:

It's total contribution. You're arguing that a guy with less accolades and less contributions over a guy with more of both. I've been consistent, you're just unwilling to accept the reality that Mack did more for the decade, and the voters recognized that.

 

Quote

Since you added Kelce/Witten in an edit, it's exactly the same as Calvin. Kelce has 4 all-pro berths to Witten's 2. Accomplished more, it just happened to be in less time. 

Quote

That is a completely different argument. The all-decade team is specifically about total contributions that decade. Gore is on there over Charles, Foster, Gurley, Bell, Elliott, all guys with more/equal pro-bowls and/or all-pros than him. They did as much in less time, right? It isn't about how much you do per years played. It's how much you do, period.

I hope you see the contradiction in these two post in which your top post doesn't hold up.