Five Greatest Football Players

[cj]

Was sitting around talking football with my Dad tonight, and we started talking about great football players.

Here is who we settled on as the five best, any position:

Jim Brown
Lawrence Taylor
Joe Montana
Jerry Rice
Johnny Unitas

[betchatoo]

Need to add Walter Payton. Not the best running back (that was either Jim Brown or Barry Sanders), but the best all around football player ever. He could not only run and catch, but he was a devastating blocker, an excellent passer AND the teams back-up punter and place kicker. Plus Buddy Ryan once said that Payton was the best tackler on the team.

[cj]

He just missed the cut for me. Maybe if Ditka had let him score in the Super Bowl instead of that sorry Fridge! :D:D:D

I would rank Emmit Smith above Payton also. He could do everything Payton could, except maybe kick, but he did it longer, and is still doing it.

[Bubbles]

Here's mine...

Joe Montana
Lawrence Taylor
Jim Brown
Otto Graham
Walter Payton

I expect argument on Graham. Here's my argument for him:

10 pro seasons.
10 championship games.
7 titles.

His stats weren't impressive, but keep in mind that back when he played, the pass wasn't relied upon nearly as much as it is today.

[Valuist]

Jerry Rice, John Elway, Walter Payton, Joe Montana and Jim Brown.

Honorable mention: Lawrence Taylor, Dick Butkus, Barry Sanders and Brett Favre

FWIW-Emmitt Smith did NOTHING better than Walter Payton. His supporting cast was 1000 times better than what Payton had, at least until the final 2-3 years of his career.

[sq764]

Originally posted by cj
Was sitting around talking football with my Dad tonight, and we started talking about great football players.

Here is who we settled on as the five best, any position:

Jim Brown
Lawrence Taylor
Joe Montana
Jerry Rice
Johnny Unitas

Donovan Mcnabb
Terell Owens
M...just kidding..

I would say Joe Montana, John Elway, Jerry Rice, Unitas, Ronnie Lott

Potential GREAT Ones playing now: Peyton Manning, Marshall Faulk, Marvin Harrison, Larry Fitzgerald

[headhawg]

Originally posted by cj
He just missed the cut for me. Maybe if Ditka had let him score in the Super Bowl instead of that sorry Fridge! :D:D:D

I would rank Emmit Smith above Payton also. He could do everything Payton could, except maybe kick, but he did it longer, and is still doing it.

Dumbest coaching move ever. The Bears score 46 points and Walter never even sniffs the goal line. With 1st and goal from the 2, I give it to Payton four straight times.

If Payton ran behind the offensive lines of Dallas he might have had 20,000 yards. No way Smith is better. Plus, the Bears had no QB/passing game. Defenses gameplanned to stop Walter -- and it didn't matter.

Payton, Unitas, Montana, Jim Brown, and LT.

[ElKabong]

for impact, in my time......

Jim Brown

Barry Sanders

Lawrence Taylor

John Elway

Dick Butkus


before my time, but their careers were awesome...Bobby Layne, Otto Graham, Sammy Baugh.


the guy that changed the way the game was coached and schemed defensively, forever....Bob Hayes.

Most underrated players who'd rewrite record books if they played in the 90s....Charley Taylor, Paul Warfield.

Most exciting, till the knees gave way.....Gayle Sayers by a nose over Barry Sanders.

Glad to see Deion didn't make any lists. Without a pass rush he was just good, not great.

[RXB]

1. Jim Brown

2. Walter Payton

3. Reggie White

4. John Hannah

5. Lawrence Taylor

[kenwoodallpromos]

Joe Montana
Randy Cross
Terry Bradshaw
Sammy Baugh
Mike Singletary

[Dan Montilion]

O.J. Simpson anybody?

Dan Montilion

[cj]

I was just a kid in OJ's prime, so I don't remember much about him. My Dad swears he was better than anyone not named Brown.

For a few seasons in my lifetime, Earl Campbell was as good as anyone I've ever seen. It just didn't last long enough.

[Dan Montilion]

Or for a real flash of what could have been... Bo Jackson.

Dan Montilion

[RXB]

If running backs were compared strictly on running ability, Earl Campbell, Emmitt Smith and OJ would rank with Payton. But Walter had no peer as a blocker and was also a better pass receiver than those three.

[JustRalph]

any of the 5 top players back when they wore leather helmets.........if you can survive that.........you must have been pretty tough..............

[sq764]

Originally posted by Dan Montilion
Or for a real flash of what could have been... Bo Jackson.

Dan Montilion If we're talking Tecmo football, he's the greatest..er, sorry, wrong thread..

[Valuist]

Regarding OJ, he's the best pure runner I've ever seen. I started watching around 72 or so so I missed out on actually seeing Brown and Sayres. Payton was a better all around player than OJ but in terms of running off tackle, or around end, OJ was the best post-Jim Brown. Imagine Barry Sanders with a 6'2" 220 lb body and power. He had 2000 yards back when they played 14 games. Then he turns into a murderer......

[sq764]

Originally posted by Valuist
Regarding OJ, he's the best pure runner I've ever seen. I started watching around 72 or so so I missed out on actually seeing Brown and Sayres. Payton was a better all around player than OJ but in terms of running off tackle, or around end, OJ was the best post-Jim Brown. Imagine Barry Sanders with a 6'2" 220 lb body and power. He had 2000 yards back when they played 14 games. Then he turns into a murderer......

And forget Kordell Stewart, OJ was the original 'slash'

[Valuist]

Him and Rae Carruth....

[joeprunes]

Got to admit it OJ was great. You younger guys really should get a film of him. He could go through the smallest hole like lightenly. his excelleration was unbeleivable.
As far as whos the best its like baseball eras, and who got the best front line..jp

[JustRalph]

O.J. was pretty awesome in his prime. I remember him as a straight up and down runner. He hit the hole and went straight for the goal. None of the stuff you see today....O.J. went straight for the end zone.

[BillW]

Originally posted by JustRalph
O.J. was pretty awesome in his prime. I remember him as a straight up and down runner. He hit the hole and went straight for the goal. None of the stuff you see today....O.J. went straight for the end zone.

I don't think you could really take much away from OJ, but he did have a fair O-line/blocking back on the field with him (IIRC).

Bill

[cj]

Originally posted by sq764
If we're talking Tecmo football, he's the greatest..er, sorry, wrong thread..

Lawrence Taylor was the Tecmo man. He could block the extra points! :D

[SAL]

My list of the players I've seen play:

Joe Montana
Lawrence Taylor
Brett Favre
Ronnie Lott
Eric Dickerson

[shanta]

My favs of the ones I have seen play:

Joe Namath
LT
Jerry Rice
Dick Butkus
Barry Sanders

[kingfin66]

...the linemen? You have all named some wonderfull "skill" players. What about the guys the give the QBs' time to throw? How about those D linemen that bottle up running games. Butkus and LT have been listed, but my vote for the top defensive player, outside of LT who is the greatest ever, has to be one Ray Lewis of the Baltimore Ravens. He is just amazing to watch. He's fast, strong, plays with incredible intensity and rarely makes a mistake.

Offensive linemen: How about Anthony Munoz, Orlando Pace, John Hannah (New England by way of USC), to name a few.

[sq764]

Originally posted by kingfin66
...the linemen? You have all named some wonderfull "skill" players. What about the guys the give the QBs' time to throw? How about those D linemen that bottle up running games. Butkus and LT have been listed, but my vote for the top defensive player, outside of LT who is the greatest ever, has to be one Ray Lewis of the Baltimore Ravens. He is just amazing to watch. He's fast, strong, plays with incredible intensity and rarely makes a mistake.

Offensive linemen: How about Anthony Munoz, Orlando Pace, John Hannah (New England by way of USC), to name a few. Bill Romanowski was/is amazing..

[kingfin66]

Talk about intensity. He was/is psycho on the field (and maybe off it to). There's no doubt he could play.

[Valuist]

I don't think I could put Romanowski anywhere near Butkus or LT. Let's not forget he was a steroid user, either.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Valuist
I don't think I could put Romanowski anywhere near Butkus or LT. Let's not forget he was a steroid user, either.

Um, you are joking right?

LT was a steroid, crack, morphine, heroine, coke, pot user..

[cj]

Originally posted by sq764
Bill Romanowski was/is amazing..

Aren't you the guy always criticizing Bonds because you think he juices? We KNOW Romo did/does? What gives?

[Valuist]

As my daughter would say........burn!

Sq-

When has it been shown that coke or pot enhance performance? The only drugs that matter in this argument are performance enhancers. BTW, the Hall of Fame is designed for the ultra premier players, not a decent player like Romanowski.

CJ-

I think we know what gives but I'm not going to say it.

[sq764]

Originally posted by cj
Aren't you the guy always criticizing Bonds because you think he juices? We KNOW Romo did/does? What gives?

I have said a thousand times that Bonds is one of the best players in the game.. He juices, no doubt and is an asshole no doubt.. But still one of the best players..

I guess I don't see your point..

[sq764]

Originally posted by Valuist
As my daughter would say........burn!

Sq-

When has it been shown that coke or pot enhance performance? The only drugs that matter in this argument are performance enhancers. BTW, the Hall of Fame is designed for the ultra premier players, not a decent player like Romanowski.

CJ-

I think we know what gives but I'm not going to say it.

Of course Valuist, you do know that when the NFL randomly tested for steroids in 2000, they found 63% of players using some form.

I guess the other 37% are in the hall of fame..

I would like you to be a man and tell me 'what gives' instead of trying to be cute.. Doubt you will though.

[Dan Montilion]

Originally posted by kingfin66
...the linemen? You have all named some wonderfull "skill" players. What about the guys the give the QBs' time to throw? How about those D linemen that bottle up running games. Butkus and LT have been listed, but my vote for the top defensive player, outside of LT who is the greatest ever, has to be one Ray Lewis of the Baltimore Ravens. He is just amazing to watch. He's fast, strong, plays with incredible intensity and rarely makes a mistake.

Offensive linemen: How about Anthony Munoz, Orlando Pace, John Hannah (New England by way of USC), to name a few.

Lineman... Art Shell and everybody else.

Defensive Back... Mike Haynes. Water covers two thirds of the earth, the rest is covered by Mike Haynes. Don't recall who said it but its pretty good.

Dan Montilion

[Valuist]

I'd like to know where that 63% came from.

OK, I'll say it: all your arguments seem to be anti-black players. Oh yeah, you'll defend a McNabb or TO, but they're your home team players. Maybe it isn't the case, but anyone who could think Romanowski is remotely in the same league as LT either is biased, or deluded in their judgement of talent.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Valuist
I'd like to know where that 63% came from.

OK, I'll say it: all your arguments seem to be anti-black players. Oh yeah, you'll defend a McNabb or TO, but they're your home team players. Maybe it isn't the case, but anyone who could think Romanowski is remotely in the same league as LT either is biased, or deluded in their judgement of talent.

Yes, this is why I listed Ronnie Lott and Jerry Rice in my top 5 all time players.. Last time I checked, they were black..

Are you stupid or just an idiot trying to stir up racial slanders on the board?

Hope your daughter's mother is halfway intelligent, so she at least had some chance..

[Valuist]

A real intelligent response, Sq. When you get some intelligence, you can start questioning other peoples.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Valuist
A real intelligent response, Sq. When you get some intelligence, you can start questioning other peoples.

Yeah, mighty intelligent calling someone racist. I hope your child ends up with more sense.. unfortunately she has probably already been exposed to enough of your idiocy to have a chance.. Nice job of raising that one..

Any more racial insults of me, I would appreciate they be done privately

[Valuist]

I won't have to. You'll keep exposing yourself with your moronic posts.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Valuist
I won't have to. You'll keep exposing yourself with your moronic posts.

Keep calling people anti-black when they state 2 of the greatest football players ever were black.. bright one.. nice catch

[PaceAdvantage]

SQ, don't push me....you know damn well the f word is off limits here.


BTW, didn't we just have this very same argument among you and some other poster only a month ago? What's up with that? People keep accusing you of this stuff.....

[sq764]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
SQ, don't push me....you know damn well the f word is off limits here.


BTW, didn't we just have this very same argument among you and some other poster only a month ago? What's up with that? People keep accusing you of this stuff.....

Yeah, CJ made the same idiotic comment..

Isn't the 'r'acist word off limits here too?
Guess not

[cj]

I've talked with SQ offline and we've cleared the air, so I wasn't trying to even remotely bring that up again.

I was just trying to bust his chops on how anyone could come up with Romo as an all time great, particularly a guy so anti-steroid as SQ seems to be.

[sq764]

Originally posted by cj
I've talked with SQ offline and we've cleared the air, so I wasn't trying to even remotely bring that up again.

I was just trying to bust his chops on how anyone could come up with Romo as an all time great, particularly a guy so anti-steroid as SQ seems to be.

Yes, we cleared the air and it's over and done with..

For Valuist to do the same thing just makes him look like a massive ass.. I guess you learn someone's true 'colors' quickly

[PaceAdvantage]

No, the word racist isn't off limits. Although it's tough to imagine somone lasting long around here who displays him or herself as a raving racist, so I doubt the word should come up very often. But again, the word itself is not off limits....why should it be?

How about we get back on topic.....remember...Five Greatst Football Players

[dav4463]

Deacon Jones was the best defensive lineman of all time in my opinion. I can barely remember watching him live, but I've seen all the films and stories and read books about him.

As for changing the game, has to be Joe Namath. The guy was just simply the "coolest player ever !" How many guys could get away with wearing that fur coat on the sidelines? He was the major reason the AFL reached a par with the NFL. He was on the Brady Bunch ! He had groupies ! People either loved him or hated him ! Wonder what he could have done on two good knees? His brash, cocky style has to be the forerunner for the Terrell Owens types today. I remember my Mom saying, "Look at all that long hair hanging out of his helmet ! Why can't he get a nice haircut like Len Dawson or John Unitas ?! " People complain about Terrell Owens wearing a shirt that said "I love T.O." Namath's autobiography was , " I can't wait until tomorrow, cause I get better looking each day !"

Hey ! Deacon was on the Brady Bunch too !!!

[sq764]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
No, the word racist isn't off limits. Although it's tough to imagine somone lasting long around here who displays him or herself as a raving racist, so I doubt the word should come up very often. But again, the word itself is not off limits....why should it be?

How about we get back on topic.....remember...Five Greatst Football Players


Well, I thought I was on topic by listing my 5 top players, 2 of which were Jerry Rice and Ronnie Lott...

That's why the response I got was so puzzling..

[highnote]

Johnny Unitas -- a least one touchdown pass in 47 straight games!!!!!!!!!!!
Jim Brown


For me, those two stand heads above the rest. There are so many other great players it's hard for me to say who else should be in the top 5.

Butkus was great. Gayle Sayres was no slouch. Walter Payton, LT, Elway, Montana, Bradshaw, Namath (for the way he changed the game), Deacon Jones, Otto Graham (he probably belongs on the "A" list), Roger Staubach, Bob Hayes, Ben Davidson?, Purple People Eaters, Steel Curtain. Lots of great talent.

I grew up in Ohio and was a big Cleveland Browns fan. But I gotta say, Elway was one of my all-time favorites to watch even though "The Drive" nearly broke my heart. In his first Super Bowl win, he nearly had 3 touchdowns! I think he would have rather died trying to win that Super Bowl than lose again. I never saw a player play with so much determination as he did in that first SB win. It didn't hurt that he had a great running back in Davis. Without Davis they would not have won -- especially not 2 years in a row. I would have loved to have seen the Broncos three-peat (TM?), but time ran out on him.
Elway played like he had eyes in the back of his head. Just as he was about to be sacked from behind, he would bend over and somehow elude the tackle. He did it over and over. Once I remember him scrambling all the way across the field to the right sideline and then throw back across the field to the left sideline and complete the pass. He had a tremendous arm!

js

[Valuist]

Sq-

I don't know if you're a racist or not. Maybe you just hate anyone who plays your Philly teams. Maybe that explains why you hate LT. But I do question your judgement in your posts. Romanowski mentioned in the same breath with LT? Pennington better than Culpepper? So it isn't racism; its ignorance.

BTW, maybe you can call up Ron Artest and attend some of those anger management classes. THAT you do have a problem with.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Valuist
Sq-

I don't know if you're a racist or not. Maybe you just hate anyone who plays your Philly teams. Maybe that explains why you hate LT. But I do question your judgement in your posts. Romanowski mentioned in the same breath with LT? Pennington better than Culpepper? So it isn't racism; its ignorance.

BTW, maybe you can call up Ron Artest and attend some of those anger management classes. THAT you do have a problem with.

Where in the world did I say I hated LT?? You mentioned Romanowski did steroids, I mentioned LT did crack and a host of other drugs..

I will ask again, where did I say I hate him?

If you want to challenge my opinion on Romanowski, that's absolutely fine. But don't be so stupid as to accuse someone of racism because they don't have the same opinion as you. THAT'S Ignornance..

Most people would get angry when falsely being accused of being a racist.. It's insulting and totally uncalled for..

[Valuist]

All right we'll agree we disagree on LT, Romo, Vick, Culpepper etc.

Getting back to the original subject, most of the players mentioned are offensive players. Here's a few defensive players that would probably make a top 25 list: Ray Lewis, Dick Butkus, Jack Ham, Alan Page. I don't know if I could put Deion up that high; great cover corner but a lousy tackler.

[bettheoverlay]

[i]

BTW, maybe you can call up Ron Artest and attend some of those anger management classes. THAT you do have a problem with. [/B]

Sometimes I think half the men in America need anger management counseling. The off topic section here supplies ample evidence.


Best QB - Joe Montana
Best defense - Lawrence Taylor
Greatest impact - Joe Namath

[Valuist]

If we had to vote for 1 player, who would be the best? I would have to say it would be between Brown and Elway. I know many would say Montana but I'd take Elway over Montana. Montana had the greatest WR to ever play the game and numerous other stars on those Niner teams; Roger Craig, John Taylor, not to mention some great players on defense like Ronnie Lott. Elway didn't get his Super Bowl wins until the end of his career, when they finally got him a stud running back. Look at his earlier teams; getting to the Super Bowl with Sammy Winder as a RB? He single handedly carried those teams. As for RB, as big a fan I am of Payton, Brown's numbers were amazing. I think he only played 9 seasons, and it was only 14 game seasons. I'm sure he could've piled on considerably more yards had he chosen not to retire. Hard to split those two.

[Secretariat]

I’m gonna limit mine to my favorite QB’s: - tough to pick different positions – maybe Jim Brown at the top of all.

Joe Montana- the best all around
John Unitas - unbelivable passer, and play caller
Roger Staubach - if he hadn't gone into the Navy imagine his stats
Bart Starr - the best machine like QB I've ever seen - 4 INT's one year.
Sonny Jurgenson – the Babe Ruth of football. The man could guzzle a beer and throw a ball 90 yards on the dime.

Honorable Mention: Elway, Bradshaw, Peyton Manning, Tarkenton, Baugh, Tittle, and Namath

[cato]

greatest ever--Jim Brown

influenced or changed the position--

QB: Unitas, Jurgenson, Namath

WR: Bullet Bob Hayes, Jerry Rice

Running Back: Brown, G Sayers, B. Sanders

Lineman: that's tough--you have to look at lineman and defenses more as a unit
Purple People Eaters of the Vikings, especially Deacon Jones;
Da Bears in the 80s
Steelers defense of the late 70s and early 80s (I think I have my timing correct)
Raven defense in the 2000s
Cowboys offensive line in the late 60s early 70s

Happy Tukey day, Cato

[Valuist]

Was Namath the most overrated player? I admit I wasn't yet watching football the year the Jets won the Super Bowl but I did see him from 1972 on. I remember seeing his stats and he had one monster year but then pretty much lagged behind Unitas, Jurgenson, Tarkenton and others. The last 5 years of his career he was very average.

[Buckeye]

"The last 5 years of his career he was very average."

So were his knees.

Actually, they were considerably! less than that.

Broadway Joe could throw the ball and lead a team, there is a difference between a player who can do and a player who can do and make others do too. Like Montana, Namath was one of those guys.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Dan Montilion
O.J. Simpson anybody?

Dan Montilion

Nobody could cut and run like OJ!:rolleyes:

[Tom]

My top 5

Lynn Swann
Roger Staubach
Jim Brown
Art Donaovan
Max Magee

Honorable memtion to Fran Tarkenton - yhe guy could scramble for 110 yards and wind up moving the ball one yard! Most fun player to watch.

[Valuist]

Buckeye-

I'm aware that Namath had bad knees. No question he had a great season. But one or two great years isn't enough, IMO, to warrant being mentioned among the top QBs. I've always felt that his off the field reputation somehow enhanced the perception of him as a player.

[cato]

Namath revolutionized the game.

He was the first #1 pick out of college to sign with the AFL (or at least the most important). It was unthinkable at the time for someone to reject the NFL and go to the league that would, no doubt, fail in the next year or two. WHen Namath went to the AFL it was a revolutionary event. It gave the AFL credibility and freaked out the NFL owners (one of the few times they had ever been involved in a bidding war and they lost it)

Then, when all traditionalists "knew" that the NFL was the dominant league and the NFL management was saying that there would NEVER be parity and everyone pretty much viewed the super bowl as an exhibition game so the NFL could continue to prove its dominance, Namath flat out said--"hey we are good and we are going to win... I guarantee it"

People were shocked--no one was going to beat the Colts that year. They had been a dominant team and almost everyne thought that the Jets had NO chance. Yet here was Namath basicaly taunting the Colts.

And then he did the impossible and lead the team to victory. It was probably the single most significant game in NFL history. It completely vaporized the myth of NFL dominance.

And the white shoes--he wore white shoes--everyone else wore black. I was in high school at teh time and we were going: " You mean you can do that? SOmething different? Really? In a couple of years the country was littered with high school quarterbacks and running backs in white shoes.

In addition to being an icon, when he was in his prime he was as good as anyone + he was a leader. It was those damn knees that took him down (and maybe a few too many drinks...)

Cheers, Cato

[dav4463]

Great post Cato ! Namath was an icon both on and off the field. The women followed him around like a rock star ! He was cocky, confident, and he backed it up. When he won, he took the credit, when he lost, he took the blame. He had something hard to describe...call it "IT" ! Namath had "IT" ! He was simply a leader who revolutionized pro football. Statistics weren't that important to him, if the team needed field position, he would sacrifice an interception as long as it was 40 + yards downfield with the chance of a big play. He didn't throw too many dumpoff passes. His passes were designed to gain big yardage. Also, he threw in an era where the receivers were knocked down and beat up all the way down the field. If the knees hadn't have gone, I have no doubt that he would have been even greater than he already was. Statistics don't tell the whole story. In today's game it is a lot easier to pile up stats, it was a different game then. "Broadway Joe" will always be remembered as one of the truly great players in the history of the league.

[LutherCalvin]

Ray Lewis
Jim Brown
Jerry Rice
Brett Favre
Randy Moss

[chickenhead]

My dad has some good stories about Bullet Bob Hayes.....the 49ers during trading camp, everyone has to run a few 40 yd. dashes, they record your times and put them up on a big board in the locker room.
When Bob Hayes got traded to the 49ers, everyone was anxious to watch the guy run the 40...this was the worlds fastest man after all.
Out of respect to him, the Niners never made him run a timed sprint, on the big board next to everyone elses time....by Bob Hayes it just said

FAST .

I always thought that was pretty damn cool.

[trickey]

1. John Unitas

2. Jim Brown

3. Lawrence Taylor

4. Joe Namath

5. Jerry Rice

[headhawg]

Two things I find very interesting about this thread:

1) There are more common choices for the top 5 then I would have predicted in advance. (Sports fans are VERY opinionated and I thought there would have been more disparity in the nominations.)

2) That Namath's name came up in the Top 5 fairly often. He surely had some impact on the game, but I have to agree with what Valuist posted about people's perception of him.

[Valuist]

Have one big year, pull off a big upset after predicting it, sleep with as many women as you want while getting loaded all the time, and you become a Hall of Famer. Headhawg, I agree. There's no way he belongs in the top 5.

In baseball, Steve Stone had one great year when he won 25 games. Cy Young Award winner for that year. But that did make him a Hall of Famer for his career? No it didn't.

[dav4463]

Totally disagree on Namath. He was an icon. Another like him was Bobby Layne, statistically not great, but an incredible leader and a showman both on and off the field. He also won a couple of championships.

[Buckeye]

Namath was no good?

Top 5 all time or at least since I've been paying attention.

QB Montana
RB OJ
WR Rice
QB Lott
ML LT

That's five.

[Buckeye]

CB Lott

Uh Oh!

He's faster than me and he's going to HIT me . . .

Hard.

[dav4463]

Namath was greatness !

[toetoe]

sq764 ..hut! hut! ronnie lott is black? homo nowski was good for one thing in his 49er days (hey, that was a horse) - slugging somebody out of bounds and getting flagged for it. he was no bill bergey.

[Stillriledup]

saw something tonight that blew my mind about Jerry Rice, probably his most amazing 'accomplishment'.

Jerry has over 20 more games played than anyone that's not a kicker, punter or QB.

Talk about GOAT, wow, this guy just didnt miss games.

[tucker6]

can't believe you spend your time rummaging through old threads looking to bump lol.

Anyway, two things stuck out for me in the 20 odd posts I viewed. One, greatest lists are always made up of QB, RB, WR, and LB nearly 98% of the time. Anthony Munoz played for the rival Bengals and was the absolute best LT I have ever seen bar none. Not sure he ever allowed a sack. His impact on the game he was playing in was phenomenal. Two, a LOT of Namath fanboys were in this thread. Holy hell the guy was mostly a tv image icon, nothing more, nothing less. He was an average qb, even for that day and age. Losing record, 50% completion rate, and 173 tds against 220 ints.

[Kash$]

can't believe you spend your time rummaging through old threads looking to bump lol.

Anyway, two things stuck out for me in the 20 odd posts I viewed. One, greatest lists are always made up of QB, RB, WR, and LB nearly 98% of the time. Anthony Munoz played for the rival Bengals and was the absolute best LT I have ever seen bar none. Not sure he ever allowed a sack. His impact on the game he was playing in was phenomenal. Two, a LOT of Namath fanboys were in this thread. Holy hell the guy was mostly a tv image icon, nothing more, nothing less. He was an average qb, even for that day and age. Losing record, 50% completion rate, and 173 tds against 220 ints.


Tucker great points on Munoz and Namath..

Best ive seen in my era (never saw Jim Brown)...

L.T.
Munoz
Rice
Montana
Elway

[forced89]

Give me Chuck Bednarik. All Pro at both Offensive Center and Line Backer. Played 60 minutes game after game. Put Frank Gifford out for a full season with one hit.

[OTM Al]

God Lord. Did this 12 year old thread occur before there was a split between sports and general in off topic? Please make the madness stop.

[Inner Dirt]

can't believe you spend your time rummaging through old threads looking to bump lol.

Anyway, two things stuck out for me in the 20 odd posts I viewed. One, greatest lists are always made up of QB, RB, WR, and LB nearly 98% of the time. Anthony Munoz played for the rival Bengals and was the absolute best LT I have ever seen bar none. Not sure he ever allowed a sack. His impact on the game he was playing in was phenomenal. Two, a LOT of Namath fanboys were in this thread. Holy hell the guy was mostly a tv image icon, nothing more, nothing less. He was an average qb, even for that day and age. Losing record, 50% completion rate, and 173 tds against 220 ints.

Pretty obvious why no one names offensive lineman, they usually are noticed mostly for missing blocks that lead to sacks and drawing penalty flags. The worst lineman are the ones whose name is called the most by the announcing team. The great ones get very little air time. Namath had a couple amazing years but I don't think his whole body of work should put him in the Hall of Fame.

[tucker6]

Bednarik was from the area I lived in for many years. A true great. I feel blessed to have seen the NFL in its heyday back in the 70s when it resembled the wild west. The current game is fun to watch, but we'll never have the same "characters" we once had, both players and coaches. Not to mention the hitting.

[The Judge]

If I were picking a team here is how I would start

Jim Brown
Joe Montana
O.J Simpson
Gale Sayers
Lawrence Taylor (Got To see them all live)

Wouldn't Argue with Jerry Rice, Ronnie Lott, Tom Brady,Reggie White,Dan Marino, Deion Sanders,Barry Sanders, Bo Jackson.

[tucker6]

Pretty obvious why no one names offensive lineman, they usually are noticed mostly for missing blocks that lead to sacks and drawing penalty flags. The worst lineman are the ones whose name is called the most by the announcing team. The great ones get very little air time. Namath had a couple amazing years but I don't think his whole body of work should put him in the Hall of Fame.
I agree with your post except for the bolded. Here were Namath's best three years and stats for them

1966 - 49.3% completion, 3,379 yards, 19 tds, 27 ints
1967 - 52.5% completion, 4,007 yards, 26 tds, 28 ints
1968 - 49.2% completion, 3,147 yards, 15 tds, 17 ints

Good enough to win a SB after the 68 season, but not much amazing about those stats, even for the 60s.

To me, amazing is Otto Graham passing for 25 tds and throwing 11 ints in 1947 with a 61% completion rate. That would get him $25M/year today. :D

[Valuist]

I was going to post my top 5 and I started reading the thread. I already responded.....12 years ago.

[pandy]

Great post Cato ! Namath was an icon both on and off the field. The women followed him around like a rock star ! He was cocky, confident, and he backed it up. When he won, he took the credit, when he lost, he took the blame. He had something hard to describe...call it "IT" ! Namath had "IT" ! He was simply a leader who revolutionized pro football. Statistics weren't that important to him, if the team needed field position, he would sacrifice an interception as long as it was 40 + yards downfield with the chance of a big play. He didn't throw too many dumpoff passes. His passes were designed to gain big yardage. Also, he threw in an era where the receivers were knocked down and beat up all the way down the field. If the knees hadn't have gone, I have no doubt that he would have been even greater than he already was. Statistics don't tell the whole story. In today's game it is a lot easier to pile up stats, it was a different game then. "Broadway Joe" will always be remembered as one of the truly great players in the history of the league.


Very good points, I agree with all. No doubt that in today's game Namath's stats would be huge.

[pandy]

Even though Namath was my favorite player, he was not as consistent as Manning and Marino.

We should have two lists, one for top 5 offense and one for top 5 defense.


Peyton Manning
Dan Marino
Jim Brown
Barry Sanders
Lawrence Taylor

[ArlJim78]

It took me 10 minutes reading through this thread before I realized that it originated in 2004!

[Stillriledup]

God Lord. Did this 12 year old thread occur before there was a split between sports and general in off topic? Please make the madness stop.

There's always going to be five greatest football players what's the difference when the thread started its always a relevant conversation. It's also interesting to see what some of us thought over a decade ago, is it not?

[ronsmac]

I agree with your post except for the bolded. Here were Namath's best three years and stats for them

1966 - 49.3% completion, 3,379 yards, 19 tds, 27 ints
1967 - 52.5% completion, 4,007 yards, 26 tds, 28 ints
1968 - 49.2% completion, 3,147 yards, 15 tds, 17 ints

Good enough to win a SB after the 68 season, but not much amazing about those stats, even for the 60s.

To me, amazing is Otto Graham passing for 25 tds and throwing 11 ints in 1947 with a 61% completion rate. That would get him $25M/year today. :DTrue but most of the players sucked back in those days.

[OTM Al]

There's always going to be five greatest football players what's the difference when the thread started its always a relevant conversation. It's also interesting to see what some of us thought over a decade ago, is it not?
No

[Rookies]

No

:lol:

[tucker6]

True but most of the players sucked back in those days.
A lot actually had second jobs!!!!! Those were the days Edith.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Wow! An 11 year, 5 month year old thread! Hundreds of football careers have started and finished in that time frame! :lol:

[Stillriledup]

Wow! An 11 year, 5 month year old thread! Hundreds of football careers have started and finished in that time frame! :lol:

they have, and there are new guys on the list, so it needs to be updated.

[Stillriledup]

No

if its not relevant or interesting, why are you in this thread at all? just decided to clog up a thread about football players? dont you have a hockey thread to muck up somewhere?

[proximity]

i was going to list rod woodson as a possible top five player that wasn't mentioned from the proximity era of 1975+ but here's a list:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/career_av_career.htm

[tucker6]

i was going to list rod woodson as a possible top five player that wasn't mentioned from the proximity era of 1975+ but here's a list:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/career_av_career.htm
I would put Lawrence Taylor slightly above Ray Lewis, and Reggie White above both for defensive impact on a game they were playing in. Neon Deion at 43 is low. He impacted the offensive game plan each week. That's how I look at defensive players overall. Did the other team have to scheme against someone because they were that good, and to what extent.

Top five defenders I've seen with my eyes who impacted games every week (1973+):

Reggie White
LT
Ray Lewis
Deion Sanders
Bruce Smith

On another note, Fran Tarkenton at #7 is baffling to me.

[OTM Al]

if its not relevant or interesting, why are you in this thread at all? just decided to clog up a thread about football players? dont you have a hockey thread to muck up somewhere?
You asked a question and I answered it. I would also believe my answer is more accurate, relevant, and to the point than pretty much anything you have ever posted. I would say "don't you have every thread ever posted on this board ever to go muck up" but then you already have.

[Rookies]

You asked a question and I answered it. I would also believe my answer is more accurate, relevant, and to the point than pretty much anything you have ever posted. I would say "don't you have every thread ever posted on this board ever to go muck up" but then you already have.

OMG! :lol: :jump:

[proximity]

I would put Lawrence Taylor slightly above Ray Lewis, and Reggie White above both for defensive impact on a game they were playing in. .

would be cool if they could add some points to reggie for his time with the showboats!! :)

[ronsmac]

I would put Lawrence Taylor slightly above Ray Lewis, and Reggie White above both for defensive impact on a game they were playing in. Neon Deion at 43 is low. He impacted the offensive game plan each week. That's how I look at defensive players overall. Did the other team have to scheme against someone because they were that good, and to what extent.

Top five defenders I've seen with my eyes who impacted games every week (1973+):

Reggie White
LT
Ray Lewis
Deion Sanders
Bruce Smith

On another note, Fran Tarkenton at #7 is baffling to me.I like your list though I'd replace Lewis with Reavis. What he was able to do in an era where 40 passes a game is normal and breathing on a receiver is a penalty has been anazing.

[highnote]

Has anyone mentioned Jim Thorpe?

If not, how did he get overlooked?!

[ronsmac]

Has anyone mentioned Jim Thorpe?

If not, how did he get overlooked?!You are making a joke I hope? What's next. John l. Sullivan as the greatest boxer ever?

[highnote]

You are making a joke I hope? What's next. John l. Sullivan as the greatest boxer ever?


Absolutely. In his era Thorpe was a great football player -- maybe the greatest relative to his era. He was voted greatest athlete of his century in an ABC Sports poll.

Johnny Unitas was great in his era, too, but that doesn't mean Unitas could compete as effectively in today's game. Yet, Unitas was mentioned in this thread and I don't see you ridiculing him or the person who posted.

Hell, even today, high school athletes can throw the discus farther than Olympians at the turn of the century.

Here are some excerpts about Thorpe from Wikipedia:

"Thorpe gained nationwide attention for the first time in 1911.[18] As a running back, defensive back, placekicker and punter, Thorpe scored all his team's points—four field goals and a touchdown—in an 18–15 upset of Harvard, a top ranked team in those early days of the National Collegiate Athletic Association.[17] His team finished the season 11–1. In 1912 Carlisle won the national collegiate championship largely as a result of his efforts – he scored 25 touchdowns and 198 points during the season.[14]

Carlisle's 1912 record included a 27–6 victory over Army.[6] In that game, Thorpe's 92-yard touchdown was nullified by a teammate's penalty, but on the next play Thorpe rushed for a 97-yard touchdown.[19] Future President Dwight Eisenhower, who played against him that season, recalled of Thorpe in a 1961 speech:


"Here and there, there are some people who are supremely endowed. My memory goes back to Jim Thorpe. He never practiced in his life, and he could do anything better than any other football player I ever saw."[14]

He was awarded All-American honors in both 1911 and 1912.[6]

Football was – and would remain – Thorpe's favorite sport.[20] He competed only sporadically in track and field, even though this turned out to be the sport in which he gained his greatest fame.

He first played professional football in 1913 as a member of the Indiana-based Pine Village Pros, a team that had a several-season winning streak against local teams during the 1910s.[40] He then signed with the Canton Bulldogs in 1915. They paid him $250 ($5,848 today) a game, a tremendous wage at the time.[41] Before signing him Canton was averaging 1,200 fans a game, but 8,000 showed up for his debut against the Massillon Tigers.[41] The team won titles in 1916, 1917, and 1919. He reportedly ended the 1919 championship game by kicking a wind-assisted 95-yard punt from his team's own 5-yard line, effectively putting the game out of reach.[41] In 1920, the Bulldogs were one of 14 teams to form the American Professional Football Association (APFA), which would become the National Football League (NFL) two years later. Thorpe was nominally the APFA's first president, but spent most of the year playing for Canton and a year later was replaced as president by Joseph Carr.[42] He continued to play for Canton, coaching the team as well. Between 1921 and 1923, he helped organize and played for the Oorang Indians (LaRue, Ohio), an all-Native American team.[43] Although the team's record was 3–6 in 1922,[44] and 1–10 in 1923,[45] he played well and was selected for the Green Bay Press-Gazette's first All-NFL team in 1923, which would later be formally recognized by the NFL as the league's official All-NFL team in 1931).[46]

Thorpe never played for an NFL championship team. He retired from professional football at age 41,[11] having played 52 NFL games for six teams from 1920 to 1928.[47]

Until 2005, most of Thorpe's biographers were unaware of his basketball career[48] until a ticket discovered in an old book that year documented his career in basketball. By 1926, he was the main feature of the "World Famous Indians" of LaRue which sponsored traveling football, baseball and basketball teams. "Jim Thorpe and His World-Famous Indians" barnstormed for at least two years (1927–28) in parts of New York and Pennsylvania as well as Marion, Ohio. Although pictures of Thorpe in his WFI basketball uniform were printed on postcards and published in newspapers, this period of his life was not well documented."

[Rookies]

the worst 10 percent of my posts are better than anything you've ever posted, if you left tomorrow, nobody would notice.

or care.

Do you know ANYBODY here... at all?

[ronsmac]

Absolutely. In his era Thorpe was a great football player -- maybe the greatest relative to his era. He was voted greatest athlete of his century in an ABC Sports poll.

Johnny Unitas was great in his era, too, but that doesn't mean Unitas could compete as effectively in today's game. Yet, Unitas was mentioned in this thread and I don't see you ridiculing him or the person who posted.

Hell, even today, high school athletes can throw the discus farther than Olympians at the turn of the century.

Here are some excerpts about Thorpe from Wikipedia:

"Thorpe gained nationwide attention for the first time in 1911.[18] As a running back, defensive back, placekicker and punter, Thorpe scored all his team's points—four field goals and a touchdown—in an 18–15 upset of Harvard, a top ranked team in those early days of the National Collegiate Athletic Association.[17] His team finished the season 11–1. In 1912 Carlisle won the national collegiate championship largely as a result of his efforts – he scored 25 touchdowns and 198 points during the season.[14]

Carlisle's 1912 record included a 27–6 victory over Army.[6] In that game, Thorpe's 92-yard touchdown was nullified by a teammate's penalty, but on the next play Thorpe rushed for a 97-yard touchdown.[19] Future President Dwight Eisenhower, who played against him that season, recalled of Thorpe in a 1961 speech:


"Here and there, there are some people who are supremely endowed. My memory goes back to Jim Thorpe. He never practiced in his life, and he could do anything better than any other football player I ever saw."[14]

He was awarded All-American honors in both 1911 and 1912.[6]

Football was – and would remain – Thorpe's favorite sport.[20] He competed only sporadically in track and field, even though this turned out to be the sport in which he gained his greatest fame.

He first played professional football in 1913 as a member of the Indiana-based Pine Village Pros, a team that had a several-season winning streak against local teams during the 1910s.[40] He then signed with the Canton Bulldogs in 1915. They paid him $250 ($5,848 today) a game, a tremendous wage at the time.[41] Before signing him Canton was averaging 1,200 fans a game, but 8,000 showed up for his debut against the Massillon Tigers.[41] The team won titles in 1916, 1917, and 1919. He reportedly ended the 1919 championship game by kicking a wind-assisted 95-yard punt from his team's own 5-yard line, effectively putting the game out of reach.[41] In 1920, the Bulldogs were one of 14 teams to form the American Professional Football Association (APFA), which would become the National Football League (NFL) two years later. Thorpe was nominally the APFA's first president, but spent most of the year playing for Canton and a year later was replaced as president by Joseph Carr.[42] He continued to play for Canton, coaching the team as well. Between 1921 and 1923, he helped organize and played for the Oorang Indians (LaRue, Ohio), an all-Native American team.[43] Although the team's record was 3–6 in 1922,[44] and 1–10 in 1923,[45] he played well and was selected for the Green Bay Press-Gazette's first All-NFL team in 1923, which would later be formally recognized by the NFL as the league's official All-NFL team in 1931).[46]

Thorpe never played for an NFL championship team. He retired from professional football at age 41,[11] having played 52 NFL games for six teams from 1920 to 1928.[47]

Until 2005, most of Thorpe's biographers were unaware of his basketball career[48] until a ticket discovered in an old book that year documented his career in basketball. By 1926, he was the main feature of the "World Famous Indians" of LaRue which sponsored traveling football, baseball and basketball teams. "Jim Thorpe and His World-Famous Indians" barnstormed for at least two years (1927–28) in parts of New York and Pennsylvania as well as Marion, Ohio. Although pictures of Thorpe in his WFI basketball uniform were printed on postcards and published in newspapers, this period of his life was not well documented."I might put Thrope in my greatest 2500 players of all time but not top 5.They didn't even have black players back then. That's what's wonderful. You have your opinion and I have mine.

[cj]

Moved this thread to Sports. It it so old there was no Off Topic - Sports when I started it.

[tucker6]

I might put Thrope in my greatest 2500 players of all time but not top 5.They didn't even have black players back then. That's what's wonderful. You have your opinion and I have mine.
That's an odd statement to make when considering "all time" lists in football. For starters, the greatness of a single person has to do with their skills comparative to others, whether that comparison is made between a guy playing in 1912 and playing in 2015. Stats come into play, but it isn't the end all, be all on a top 5 football list. Many go by, "did he stand out in his era", and then, "did he stand out comparatively speaking with standouts from other eras. Is Jim Thorpe a greater player than Ray Lewis. Some will say yes based on those two questions. Has nothing to do with race, especially since Jim Thorpe was an Indian.

I think you are trying to equate baseball to football, and the two are not compared in the same way. One is fixated on stats in a static rules situation. So if 20% of the population is excluded, then the stats will be skewed. Football changes the rules constantly and so therefore stats are taken with more than a grain of salt from era to era.

[tucker6]

I might put Thrope in my greatest 2500 players of all time but not top 5.They didn't even have black players back then. That's what's wonderful. You have your opinion and I have mine.
... and you would be wrong as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_players_in_American_professional_football

First black player in pro football was 1902-06, with a number of blacks playing through the 20's. Only time they were excluded was 1933-45 when the racist owner of the Redskins pressured the league to exclude them.

[highnote]

I might put Thrope in my greatest 2500 players of all time but not top 5.They didn't even have black players back then. That's what's wonderful. You have your opinion and I have mine.

Actually, there were black professional football players back then. They were underrepresented, to be sure, but they did play. But it's not Thorp's fault there weren't black players. Thorp was native American, but there weren't many native American players, either. Nor were there Hawaiian players.

In his era, he was perhaps the greatest player.

Babe Ruth didn't play against black players, either, but no one says he wasn't one of the all-time greats. If the best black and Hispanic players of the era would have played in the caucasian-dominated major leagues Ruth might not have been as great. Then again, he might have. We will never know.

Just like we will never know with Thorp. All we can say about Thorp or Ruth is that they were two of the greatest players of their era. And they dominated their sports in their eras like few other players have dominated sports in their eras.

[highnote]

....Only time they were excluded was 1933-45 when the racist owner of the Redskins pressured the league to exclude them.

Redskins? Racist? With a name like Redskins how could they possibly be racist? :rolleyes:

[ronsmac]

Actually, there were black professional football players back then. They were underrepresented, to be sure, but they did play. But it's not Thorp's fault there weren't black players. Thorp was native American, but there weren't many native American players, either. Nor were there Hawaiian players.

In his era, he was perhaps the greatest player.

Babe Ruth didn't play against black players, either, but no one says he wasn't one of the all-time greats. If the best black and Hispanic players of the era would have played in the caucasian-dominated major leagues Ruth might not have been as great. Then again, he might have. We will never know.

Just like we will never know with Thorp. All we can say about Thorp or Ruth is that they were two of the greatest players of their era. And they dominated their sports in their eras like few other players have dominated sports in their eras.How many black players are in the nfl today and how many native Americans?

[ronsmac]

Actually, there were black professional football players back then. They were underrepresented, to be sure, but they did play. But it's not Thorp's fault there weren't black players. Thorp was native American, but there weren't many native American players, either. Nor were there Hawaiian players.

In his era, he was perhaps the greatest player.

Babe Ruth didn't play against black players, either, but no one says he wasn't one of the all-time greats. If the best black and Hispanic players of the era would have played in the caucasian-dominated major leagues Ruth might not have been as great. Then again, he might have. We will never know.

Just like we will never know with Thorp. All we can say about Thorp or Ruth is that they were two of the greatest players of their era. And they dominated their sports in their eras like few other players have dominated sports in their eras.Ruth's baseball career and Thropes football career don't even compare. Football is a game that relies on much more athletic and physical skills than baseball. Even in the 60s the Packers won a sb with their 3 best wrs being slow white guys. That would never happen today with the Pats being a possible exception.

[highnote]

How many black players are in the nfl today and how many native Americans?

Hell if I know. What's your point?

[highnote]

Ruth's baseball career and Thropes football career don't even compare. Football is a game that relies on much more athletic and physical skills than baseball.

I would argue that both sports require different types of athletic and physical skills. Otherwise, all football players could be the greatest baseball players. They can't.

Even in the 60s the Packers won a sb with their 3 best wrs being slow white guys. That would never happen today with the Pats being a possible exception.

Linemen in the 1960s averaged 6' 3" and 250 pounds. Cam Newton is 6' 5" and 250 pounds.

It's a different game today. There was less passing back then. That's why Johnny Unitas' 47 game TD throwing streak is so amazing. The fact that it took about 50 years to break it, is also amazing.

Perhaps the best way to measure the greatness of a player is by looking at the average player in a given era and then determining how much better a given player is from average.

Jim Thorp was way better than average. How much better are today's top players from today's average player? I would bet there is a lot more parity in the league today than in earlier eras simply due to the fact that players are trained at such a high level and there is big money involved.

Thorp hardly trained at all and he was still better than anyone else.

[tucker6]

Hell if I know. What's your point?
I don't think he has a point to be honest. He keeps bringing up race as if that's the answer to some question not posed. Fact is, for all but 12 years, the NFL and its precursor(s) did NOT systematically discriminate against anybody. It was open to all comers. The reason for low black participation is that before 1915, teams were more sandlot players than anything else. After 1920, most players were college graduates, which few blacks were at the time.

Here is a good start for those wanting to know about the early history of player development and salaries in the NFL: http://operations.nfl.com/the-players/evolution-of-the-nfl-player/

No need to make anything up. It's all on the internet. The good and the bad.

[Valuist]

I would argue that both sports require different types of athletic and physical skills. Otherwise, all football players could be the greatest baseball players. They can't.



Agreed.

As for Ruth, guys like him, Chamberlain, or Gretzky were so dominant over their peers, they'd be great in any era.

[Marshall Bennett]

But then there is a position in football for almost anyone with at least minimal athletic skills. The same cannot be said of baseball. If you can't catch and throw a baseball relatively well, you can forget it. To hit a moderately fast pitch is no piece of cake either.
Perhaps bigger and stronger is an asset in football, but athletic skills? No way in the world, cowboy. :)

[tucker6]

But then there is a position in football for almost anyone with at least minimal athletic skills. The same cannot be said of baseball. If you can't catch and throw a baseball relatively well, you can forget it. To hit a moderately fast pitch is no piece of cake either.
Perhaps bigger and stronger is an asset in football, but athletic skills? No way in the world, cowboy. :)
What does eye/hand coordination have to do with athleticism? It's a skill, but I wouldn't describe it as athletic.

[highnote]

What does eye/hand coordination have to do with athleticism? It's a skill, but I wouldn't describe it as athletic.

Is eye/hand skill athletic? That's an interesting question.

Without it, would an athlete be as effective? Maybe that depends on the sport?

Does an offensive lineman need eye/hand skill?

If it is a physical skill needed to be good at a certain aspect of a sport then I would call it an athletic skill. Some people have more of it than others.

"Bubble hockey" is the arcade game with a plastic bubble covering a miniature hockey rink. Each participant manipulates his own players by pushing, pulling and twisting a rod to pass the puck. Each participant also manipulates his goalie to stop the puck.

My co-workers and I used to play bubble hockey at work during our lunch hour. We thought we were pretty good. Then one day a former NHL player played a couple of games. As soon as the puck dropped, I saw a switch turn on in him. He was back in the game with an intensity that none of us had. He had the fastest hands I ever saw when he manipulated his players. His reflexes were at another level above all of us. He could track the puck and move his hands to rods connected to each of his players with incredible speed. I'm sure his amazing eye/hand coordination is why he made it to the NHL.

A brain surgeon also needs eye/hand coordination, but not necessarily quickness. So I would say a surgeon's slow eye/hand coordination would not help the surgeon in sports as much as someone with quick eye/hand coordination, but in recreational sports, like a friendly game of tennis or golf, the surgeon might do better than someone without it.

I don't know the answer exactly, but am just presenting a counter-argument... for whatever it's worth. :D

[Marshall Bennett]

What does eye/hand coordination have to do with athleticism? It's a skill, but I wouldn't describe it as athletic.
What a ridiculous post. Where did I mention hand/eye coordination? So you're saying throwing a 90 mph fastball for a strike has nothing to do with being an athlete. Or diving to catch a line drive off a bat from 90 ft away has nothing to do with being an athlete.
Your purpose here is to grasp for an argument and not to be realistic. Keep trying.

[tucker6]

What a ridiculous post. Where did I mention hand/eye coordination? So you're saying throwing a 90 mph fastball for a strike has nothing to do with being an athlete. Or diving to catch a line drive off a bat from 90 ft away has nothing to do with being an athlete.
Your purpose here is to grasp for an argument and not to be realistic. Keep trying.
I'm sorry. I guess when you said, "To hit a moderately fast pitch is no piece of cake either", I thought you were referring to eye/hand coordination. On second thought, yes, you were referring to eye/hand coordination.

I'm not saying baseball is not athletic. I'm saying that some skills are not athletic and cannot be trained athletically into a person as much as other skills can. A big guy cannot be trained to be a world class gymnast any more than a sprinter can be trained to be a world class marathoner. Being born with some skills such as eye/hand coordination doesn't make you an athlete as highnote noted. It gives one an advantage if you become an athlete, but can be just as useful for a surgeon.

[tucker6]

Is eye/hand skill athletic? That's an interesting question.

Without it, would an athlete be as effective? Maybe that depends on the sport?

Does an offensive lineman need eye/hand skill?

If it is a physical skill needed to be good at a certain aspect of a sport then I would call it an athletic skill. Some people have more of it than others.

A brain surgeon also needs eye/hand coordination, but not necessarily quickness. So I would say a surgeon's slow eye/hand coordination would not help the surgeon in sports as much as someone with quick eye/hand coordination, but in recreational sports, like a friendly game of tennis or golf, the surgeon might do better than someone without it.

I don't know the answer exactly, but am just presenting a counter-argument... for whatever it's worth. :D
To me, eye/hand coordination is just like most things. If you concentrate efforts in that area, it can be improved upon, but you need to be born with a certain base skill set (eye/hand) in order to hit baseballs consistently. Because of muscle type, sprinters would not make good marathoners no matter the training. My opinion is that some "athletic skills" are really innate abilities that are enhanced via training. I see a difference between being able to throw a 90 mph fastball and being able to hit it. One requires an athleticism that no one else uses. The other requires a skill that can be used in other fields (surgery, juggling) but combined with a small amount of athleticism, can be useful in baseball.

[Valuist]

Whether its athleticism or not, many players can make an impact in the NFL and NBA at age 21. Very rare to see it in baseball. Guys can start to play football or basketball at age 13 or 14 and not miss a beat. If you don't start playing baseball by age 7, forget it; just too far behind the 8 ball.

[tucker6]

Whether its athleticism or not, many players can make an impact in the NFL and NBA at age 21. Very rare to see it in baseball. Guys can start to play football or basketball at age 13 or 14 and not miss a beat. If you don't start playing baseball by age 7, forget it; just too far behind the 8 ball.
I think you're grossly over generalizing here, and reaching a conclusion that cannot be made. They are completely different sports with completely different physical requirements.

[Valuist]

I think you're grossly over generalizing here, and reaching a conclusion that cannot be made. They are completely different sports with completely different physical requirements.

I'm not. Guys need years in Little League, High school, and then go on to play in college or the minors. And the top guys from college, they STILL go play in the minors for a few years. There's no minor leagues for the NFL. The NBA has a very minor version, but for the most part, if you aren't ready to play in the NBA come draft time, its extremely unlikely your ceiling is anything more than 9th guy on the bench. The point is baseball isn't just about physical requirements while those other sports are about 95% physical.

In the meantime, the Vikings drafted a guy from Germany who started playing the game about 4-5 years ago. Why? Because he's a physical freak. Look at Jimmy Graham and Anthony Gates. Those guys were college basketball players who either didn't play football at all in college (Gates) or just one season (Graham) and both went on to become All-Pros. That would NEVER, EVER happen in MLB.

[highnote]

I can't remember the NFL player's name (he does some TV analysis), but he was an offensive lineman who only played one year in college, as I recall. He was a big guy from California -- a surfer. So he had good agility and balance and was fairly thin. He was about 6' 8". But some coach saw potential in him and he ended up playing in the NFL.

So you're right, that wouldn't happen in baseball.

Basketball is somewhere in between football and baseball. If a kid is 6' 10" in the 10th grade and never played basketball, he can pick up some basic skills over a couple of years and play in college and maybe make it to the NBA if he grows to 7 feet. But to be a point guard in the NBA, a kid better start playing when he is in elementary school and work on ball handling skills every day until he graduates from high school.

[PhantomOnTour]

I can't remember the NFL player's name (he does some TV analysis), but he was an offensive lineman who only played one year in college, as I recall. He was a big guy from California -- a surfer. So he had good agility and balance and was fairly thin. He was about 6' 8". But some coach saw potential in him and he ended up playing in the NFL.

So you're right, that wouldn't happen in baseball.

Basketball is somewhere in between football and baseball. If a kid is 6' 10" in the 10th grade and never played basketball, he can pick up some basic skills over a couple of years and play in college and maybe make it to the NBA if he grows to 7 feet. But to be a point guard in the NBA, a kid better start playing when he is in elementary school and work on ball handling skills every day until he graduates from high school.
Yep - Tim Duncan didn't begin playing basketball until the 10th grade or so. He was a competitive swimmer before that, but Hurricane Hugo destroyed the only nice pool on the island where he grew up; then someone handed him a basketball and you know the rest of the story :)

[Valuist]

I believe Olajuwan (sp?) didn't start playing basketball until his junior year of high school. Needless to say, he was a quick learner.

[ronsmac]

Agreed.

As for Ruth, guys like him, Chamberlain, or Gretzky were so dominant over their peers, they'd be great in any era.They would but Thrope wouldn't. In fact he wouldn't even be 3rd string on the worst team today. And for the record neither would Red Grange.

[highnote]

They would but Thrope wouldn't. In fact he wouldn't even be 3rd string on the worst team today. And for the record neither would Red Grange.


There is no way of knowing if Thorpe would have been great in the current era. It was said he never conditioned himself. If he lived in the current era his diet and exercise regimes might have been much different. Perhaps he was capable of much better, but only played to the level of his competition?

All you can do is compare him to his peers. He was far better than the average players of his day. He played professional baseball, basketball and football as well as won Olympic gold medals in track and field events.

He played for the Canton Bulldogs and at the same time was the president and coach of the team.

He also won an intercollegiate ballroom dancing championship. He would have been great on DWTS. :D

He was the greatest athlete of the 20th century. Had he lived in the current era there is a good chance he would have adapted to the modern game of football.

[ronsmac]

There is no way of knowing if Thorpe would have been great in the current era. It was said he never conditioned himself. If he lived in the current era his diet and exercise regimes might have been much different. Perhaps he was capable of much better, but only played to the level of his competition?

All you can do is compare him to his peers. He was far better than the average players of his day. He played professional baseball, basketball and football as well as won Olympic gold medals in track and field events.

He played for the Canton Bulldogs and at the same time was the president and coach of the team.

He also won an intercollegiate ballroom dancing championship. He would have been great on DWTS. :D

He was the greatest athlete of the 20th century. Had he lived in the current era there is a good chance he would have adapted to the modern game of football.Based on that crazy logic George Mikan is the best center ever and he looked like gravity was his kryptonite. In his era he won 7 titles and multiple scoring titles, but the Nbl and Nba was so bad in those days, to think he would be more than the 12th player on a team today is delusional. Thrope predates him by almost 30 years when the athletes were even worse.

[tucker6]

Based on that crazy logic George Mikan is the best center ever and he looked like gravity was his kryptonite. In his era he won 7 titles and multiple scoring titles, but the Nbl and Nba was so bad in those days, to think he would be more than the 12th player on a team today is delusional. Thrope predates him by almost 30 years when the athletes were even worse.
speaking of crazy logic...

[highnote]

Thrope predates him by almost 30 years when the athletes were even worse.


It's not Thorp's fault the athletes were "worse". There were also fewer people in the country.

Babe Ruth never had to bat against the best black and Hispanic pitchers in the world. But in his era, Ruth was one of the best of all time. He struck out a lot back then. How much would have struck out against today's better pitchers? Back then pitchers probably threw a lot more complete games. So the velocity of the pitching probably got slower as the game went on. There probably weren't as many specialists and there were fewer players to choose from because America had a smaller population and blacks did not play in the major leagues.

Ruth did what he had to do against the players that were on the field. Same with Thorp.

Sports Science and Technology has progressed. We can only guess if Thorp and Ruth would have adapted to today's game.

Thorp on steroids would have been something to see.

[ronsmac]

It's not Thorp's fault the athletes were "worse". There were also fewer people in the country.

Babe Ruth never had to bat against the best black and Hispanic pitchers in the world. But in his era, Ruth was one of the best of all time. He struck out a lot back then. How much would have struck out against today's better pitchers? Back then pitchers probably threw a lot more complete games. So the velocity of the pitching probably got slower as the game went on. There probably weren't as many specialists and there were fewer players to choose from because America had a smaller population and blacks did not play in the major leagues.

Ruth did what he had to do against the players that were on the field. Same with Thorp.

Sports Science and Technology has progressed. We can only guess if Thorp and Ruth would have adapted to today's game.

Thorp on steroids would have been something to see.Historically there haven't been a lot of black pitchers in baseball. There were some very good ones, Gibson, Blue, Richards, and others but I don't think Babe would have suffered too much if Black players were playing back then. In fact fewer American black players are playing today than in the late 60s or early 70s. Not saying it wouldn't have been a little tougher for Ruth today. Hitting a baseball is very difficult as we all know but some say it's as much as a skill as it as athletic prowess. Baseball is a sport that you can be 40 pounds overweight and still be a good hitter. Ruth,C.fielder, Kruk, just to name a few. There aren't too many great rbs,dbs,wrs who are 40 pounds overweight.That's why In my opinion baseballs players are more transferable from different era's. Sports like Football and Basketball and Track and Field the players from yesteryear just don't compare. But hey, if you think Thorpe is top 5 God bless.

[Stillriledup]

It's not Thorp's fault the athletes were "worse". There were also fewer people in the country.

Babe Ruth never had to bat against the best black and Hispanic pitchers in the world. But in his era, Ruth was one of the best of all time. He struck out a lot back then. How much would have struck out against today's better pitchers? Back then pitchers probably threw a lot more complete games. So the velocity of the pitching probably got slower as the game went on. There probably weren't as many specialists and there were fewer players to choose from because America had a smaller population and blacks did not play in the major leagues.

Ruth did what he had to do against the players that were on the field. Same with Thorp.

Sports Science and Technology has progressed. We can only guess if Thorp and Ruth would have adapted to today's game.

Thorp on steroids would have been something to see.

but what if i want to accept players 'as is' and say if you transported thorpe to 2016 as is or you transported mike trout to 1927 as is, what would happen? trout would have been ruthian back in the day, same for bryce harper and a few other players, miguel cabrera, those guys would all be 500 hitters, guys like aroldis chapman, you think anyone back in 1927 would even hit the ball off this guy?

its hard to do anything other than accept athletes 'as is' or as they were, you can't assume modern medicine and modern diets and exercise regimens would have made thorpe or ruth as legendary as they were, its not fair to anyone to assume that, so when i compare, i just go on the time machine theory, there are athletes today in all sports that are 'nobodies' who would be legends 100 years ago.

[ronsmac]

It's not Thorp's fault the athletes were "worse". There were also fewer people in the country.

Babe Ruth never had to bat against the best black and Hispanic pitchers in the world. But in his era, Ruth was one of the best of all time. He struck out a lot back then. How much would have struck out against today's better pitchers? Back then pitchers probably threw a lot more complete games. So the velocity of the pitching probably got slower as the game went on. There probably weren't as many specialists and there were fewer players to choose from because America had a smaller population and blacks did not play in the major leagues.

Ruth did what he had to do against the players that were on the field. Same with Thorp.

Sports Science and Technology has progressed. We can only guess if Thorp and Ruth would have adapted to today's game.

Thorp on steroids would have been something to see.Yes Thrope on steroids would have been something to see. Considering Ben Johnson was about .2 or .25 faster on steroids that would have put Thrope at about 11.0 in the 100 meters or about 4th fastest on a good High school track team. So he wouldn't have been able to get into the meet unless a teammate was injured. Sorry I just couldn't resist one more shot at the 1912 legend.

[cj]

Yes Thrope on steroids would have been something to see. Considering Ben Johnson was about .2 or .25 faster on steroids that would have put Thrope at about 11.0 in the 100 meters or about 4th fastest on a good High school track team. So he wouldn't have been able to get into the meet unless a teammate was injured. Sorry I just couldn't resist one more shot at the 1912 legend.

Wasn't he running on chopped up loose gravel though into a 20 mph headwind in penny loafers?

[ronsmac]

Wasn't he running on chopped up loose gravel though into a 20 mph headwind in penny loafers?Good point. I'll give him 3rd best on my school's track team , so maybe he will be able to run in the prelims.

[highnote]

Yes Thrope on steroids would have been something to see. Considering Ben Johnson was about .2 or .25 faster on steroids that would have put Thrope at about 11.0 in the 100 meters or about 4th fastest on a good High school track team. So he wouldn't have been able to get into the meet unless a teammate was injured. Sorry I just couldn't resist one more shot at the 1912 legend.

I was talking about football, not track and field.

[highnote]

Good point. I'll give him 3rd best on my school's track team , so maybe he will be able to run in the prelims.

The thread is about the 5 best football players. No professional football player that I know of was as dominant against his competition as Thorpe.

Jim Brown is widely regarded as the greatest running back if all time, but even he would find it hard to compete against athletes of the current era. However, if he lived in the current era he may have adapted. So it is impossible to say. All you can do is compare players against the competition they faced.

No athlete dominated as many sports as Thorpe. In football he had no equal.

[MPRanger]

Was sitting around talking football with my Dad tonight, and we started talking about great football players.

Here is who we settled on as the five best, any position:

Jim Brown
Lawrence Taylor
Joe Montana
Jerry Rice
Johnny Unitas

I could go for this except I would take Johnny U down and put in Bob Lilly.

[ronsmac]

The thread is about the 5 best football players. No professional football player that I know of was as dominant against his competition as Thorpe.

Jim Brown is widely regarded as the greatest running back if all time, but even he would find it hard to compete against athletes of the current era. However, if he lived in the current era he may have adapted. So it is impossible to say. All you can do is compare players against the competition they faced.

No athlete dominated as many sports as Thorpe. In football he had no equal.Good point about Jim Brown. Hands down the best in his day. He would definitely find it tougher today. He did have the size to compete today, but wouldn't have been running away from the dbs like he did in his day. I watched a lot of tape on him and saw lots of runs with small slow dbs chasing him on 60 yd td runs. I know it's politically incorrect and got Jimmy the Greek fired, but even in the 50s and 60s teams had unofficial quotas on the number of black guys who were starting. Today there isn't 1 starting corner who isn't black and didn't run 4.5 or faster at the combine . Speed kills in football and as great as Brown was there still was a lot of slow guys in the nfl back then.

[highnote]

What might happen is that some great player or new system comes along and the games changes. Other teams find ways to counter the new change. It's like cat and mouse.

A Lawrence Taylor type-player comes along. So a Michael Ohr type type-player is recruited to negate the advantage.

Then a Gronk comes along and a big, fast, speedy LB or CB is needed to contain him. Not sure if there is a good answer to Gronk yet.

[ronsmac]

What might happen is that some great player or new system comes along and the games changes. Other teams find ways to counter the new change. It's like cat and mouse.

A Lawrence Taylor type-player comes along. So a Michael Ohr type type-player is recruited to negate the advantage.

Then a Gronk comes along and a big, fast, speedy LB or CB is needed to contain him. Not sure if there is a good answer to Gronk yet.Gronk is great today, imagine him playing in the 50s. The only thing that would keep him from scoring 5 tds every game would be injuries. The play was so much dirtier back then. They would have gone for his knees on every play.

[Marshall Bennett]

I could go for this except I would take Johnny U down and put in Bob Lilly.
Nobody could take a team through a 2 minute game ending drive better than Johnny.
For that reason alone I'd keep him there. :)