titans0021 Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 https://www.si.com/nfl/mmqb-400-nfl-top-players?utm_campaign=themmqb&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social#nav-item-players-400-301 So this happened. I haven't yet had a chance to dive in being looking at the Titans players, but if they're any indication, it really makes you appreciate the NFL Network's top 100. My favorite fun Titans fact from the list: DeMarco Murray is the 29th best running back in the NFL. My second favorite fun Titans fact: Sylvester Williams was ranked ahead of Taylor Lewan, Jack Conklin, DeMarco Murray, Brian Orakpo, Marcus Mariota and Derrick Morgan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titans0021 Posted July 25, 2017 Author Share Posted July 25, 2017 Just so non-Titans fans can appreciate this list, Joe Flacco is rated 136. Three spots ahead of Russell Wilson. 26 spots ahead of Cam Newton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashMan510 Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 didn't know SI was a trollsite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanSlim Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 I know you'll never satisfy people when you do these types of list but goodness. This list is bad, bad, bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyld Stallyns Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Just based on a tweet by one of the Colts guys (works for the Colts). It appears the list is more off-season newsworthy and less great player. Colts OL Joe Haeg and Ryan Kelly made the list but Jack Mewhort didn't. The 3 guys the Colts sign to the front 7 of their defense (Hankins, Sheard and Simon) made the list. [@KBowenColts: -Luck (30)-Davis (100)-Hilton (115)-Hankins (205)-Sheard (292)-Simon (349)-Kelly (356)-Haeg (360)-Doyle (363)-Gore (368)...] Simon shouldn't be ahead of Kelly. No Adam Vinatieri, Anthony Castonzo or Jack Mewhort (Mewhort over Haeg IMHO) and worst of all no Henry Anderson. I skimmed through the list and didn't see any Ks or Ps so I think they left them off but it would have been good to acknowledge that before hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucketheadsdad Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 Paging Christian Kirksey. Over 9 tackles a game.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 Granted I don't have much of a reference for this statement, but 19 Chiefs seems like a lot. Even to me. That's basically the starting roster. And actually, it would have been 21 prior to the late cuts of Howard and Maclin. At a glance, it actually doesn't look too bad for the top 45ish or so. But the lower you get, the worse it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucketheadsdad Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 10 hours ago, Bucketheadsdad said: Paging Christian Kirksey. Over 9 tackles a game.... I guess I should clarify my support for Kirksey. Carl Nassib is on this list. He shouldn't be......yet. Missed darned near half of his rookie season, and while he made a few memorable plays, Kirksey was a tackling machine on the beleagured 2016 Browns defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coors Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 Devonta Freeman ranked #92... and Tevin Coleman ranked #91...? First, Freeman is better than Coleman. Easily. And Freeman is a top 50 player in this league. I don't like this list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyld Stallyns Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 22 hours ago, Jakuvious said: Granted I don't have much of a reference for this statement, but 19 Chiefs seems like a lot. Even to me. That's basically the starting roster. And actually, it would have been 21 prior to the late cuts of Howard and Maclin. At a glance, it actually doesn't look too bad for the top 45ish or so. But the lower you get, the worse it gets. All things considered equal. 400 players for 32 teams comes out to 12.5 players per team. Colts only had 10 and I'm sure a couple other teams didn't get 12 either so there are bound to be teams on the high end. Especially more talented teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle21121 Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 Hmm this is very tough even if this was considered a "good list" people would still gripe with it but yea this doesn't appear to be a good list. It's super hard at a certain point after the elite guys maybe at 25 you stop and think wow there might be 25 players you could rank as the 25th best player so having a guy you think at 25 being closer to 50 isn't a big deal. The part I don't like is team by team getting it wrong. Looking at the comments and looking over the list there are instances where player A believed by said fan base to be the best player and he's ranked 120-something and then player B who is also a very good player but viewed as maybe the 2nd-4th best player being ranked 80-something and stuff like that is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titans0021 Posted July 27, 2017 Author Share Posted July 27, 2017 45 minutes ago, kyle21121 said: Hmm this is very tough even if this was considered a "good list" people would still gripe with it but yea this doesn't appear to be a good list. It's super hard at a certain point after the elite guys maybe at 25 you stop and think wow there might be 25 players you could rank as the 25th best player so having a guy you think at 25 being closer to 50 isn't a big deal. The part I don't like is team by team getting it wrong. Looking at the comments and looking over the list there are instances where player A believed by said fan base to be the best player and he's ranked 120-something and then player B who is also a very good player but viewed as maybe the 2nd-4th best player being ranked 80-something and stuff like that is bad. This is part of my problem with it. There's simply no reasonable way to rank 400 players without some glaring errors. Admittedly, most of it had to do with it just being the worst Titans rankings I've ever seen. MMQB's power rankings had the Titans as the fourth best team in football a month ago (which is too high, but I digress). They then had one Titans player among the top 180 players in football and a below average nose tackle as the fourth best player on the roster. :insert old lol emoticon: But there are just some fundamentally ridiculous ones when you break it down by position (which I think is the fairest way to evaluate the list, given how difficult it is to compare an elite left tackle to an elite safety). I'm not even the biggest DeMarco Murray fan, but at one of the weaker position groups in football you're ranking a player coming off 1,287 rushing yards, 1,650 from scrimmage and 12 touchdowns below a guy like Shane Vereen, who has 40 more rushing yards in his six-year career than Murray had last season. But really, the one I keep coming back to is that they ranked Joe Flacco over Russell Wilson and Cam Newton. Which is just pure lunacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle21121 Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 7 minutes ago, titans0021 said: This is part of my problem with it. There's simply no reasonable way to rank 400 players without some glaring errors. Admittedly, most of it had to do with it just being the worst Titans rankings I've ever seen. MMQB's power rankings had the Titans as the fourth best team in football a month ago (which is too high, but I digress). They then had one Titans player among the top 180 players in football and a below average nose tackle as the fourth best player on the roster. :insert old lol emoticon: But there are just some fundamentally ridiculous ones when you break it down by position (which I think is the fairest way to evaluate the list, given how difficult it is to compare an elite left tackle to an elite safety). I'm not even the biggest DeMarco Murray fan, but at one of the weaker position groups in football you're ranking a player coming off 1,287 rushing yards, 1,650 from scrimmage and 12 touchdowns below a guy like Shane Vereen, who has 40 more rushing yards in his six-year career than Murray had last season. But really, the one I keep coming back to is that they ranked Joe Flacco over Russell Wilson and Cam Newton. Which is just pure lunacy. Fair enough. I agree with position by position being the best way to dissect it. If you have a top tier RB ranked 10 and a top tier DT ranked 11 it's insanely difficult to even compare those two players and rank one over the other. That's ludicrous to have Vereen over Murray or Flacco over Wilson or Cam it's just so bad. I more so just skimmed it and missed that sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 For Packers fans wanting to know where their players are at: #285 - DT Letroy Guion #226 - OLB Nick Perry #209 - WR Randall Cobb #200 - S Morgan Burnett #180 - S HaHa Clinton-Dix #154 - OLB Clay Matthews #145 - OT Bryan Bulaga #143 - TE Martellus Bennett #97 - WR Jordy Nelson #63 - OT David Bakhtiari #58 - DT Mike Daniels #6 - QB Aaron Rodgers A few thoughts: ~First off, no matter whether or not you agree with this list it's an impressive piece of work. ~Nick Perry at 226 is bad. He's been arguably our most important defensive player over the last year and a half outside of Mike Daniels and maybe HHCD. On the other hand, Clay is largely living off his past. ~Sorry, Aaron Rodgers isn't the 6th best player. He's a top-3 player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKTexans Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 Everyone should realise ranking 400 of anything is difficult. We all complain about the NFL top 100 list and the Pro Bowl selections which is a fraction of this list. I would say that given what I've just said, this piece of journalism is absolutely pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.