NFL Network's 100 Great Players Starts Tonight 10pm i think.

[dfr52]

50. Terry Bradshaw (not for his studio work either )
49. Mike Haynes
48. Red Grange
47. Ray Nitschke
46. Roger Staubach (THE Cowboy)
45. Tony Gonzalez
44. Mel Blount
43. Alan Page
42. John Mackey
41. Rod Woodson

IMHO, no way Bradshaw should be rated this low, if at all on this list. And not because of his annoying personality.

I never saw Mackey, but everyone I've ever asked said he's the best TE they ever saw, so it's fitting he's Slightly ahead of Tony Gonzalez.

It's gonna get harder to complain the lower the rankings go, so there's probably not much of discussion left about WHO should be on the list, more about WHERE they should be ranked. I'm still kinda intrigued there were no Special teamers on the list though.

I'm was very shocked to see Bradshaw rated that high. I've read on some other boards where Steelers fans figured he'd been left of list b/c he was not rated earlier. I know he won the 4 Championships but he was not a key figure in the Steelers early success.

 

[pigskincardboard]

50. Terry Bradshaw (not for his studio work either )
49. Mike Haynes
48. Red Grange
47. Ray Nitschke
46. Roger Staubach (THE Cowboy)
45. Tony Gonzalez
44. Mel Blount
43. Alan Page
42. John Mackey
41. Rod Woodson

IMHO, no way Bradshaw should be rated this low, if at all on this list. And not because of his annoying personality.

I never saw Mackey, but everyone I've ever asked said he's the best TE they ever saw, so it's fitting he's Slightly ahead of Tony Gonzalez.

It's gonna get harder to complain the lower the rankings go, so there's probably not much of discussion left about WHO should be on the list, more about WHERE they should be ranked. I'm still kinda intrigued there were no Special teamers on the list though.

I'm was very shocked to see Bradshaw rated that high. I've read on some other boards where Steelers fans figured he'd been left of list b/c he was not rated earlier. I know he won the 4 Championships but he was not a key figure in the Steelers early success.

Once you saw Namath make the list, you knew Bradshaw would be on it.

 

[onionring9]

This is a great list, thanks for updating it as you go!

 

[dfr52]

50. Terry Bradshaw (not for his studio work either )
49. Mike Haynes
48. Red Grange
47. Ray Nitschke
46. Roger Staubach (THE Cowboy)
45. Tony Gonzalez
44. Mel Blount
43. Alan Page
42. John Mackey
41. Rod Woodson

IMHO, no way Bradshaw should be rated this low, if at all on this list. And not because of his annoying personality.

I never saw Mackey, but everyone I've ever asked said he's the best TE they ever saw, so it's fitting he's Slightly ahead of Tony Gonzalez.

It's gonna get harder to complain the lower the rankings go, so there's probably not much of discussion left about WHO should be on the list, more about WHERE they should be ranked. I'm still kinda intrigued there were no Special teamers on the list though.

I'm was very shocked to see Bradshaw rated that high. I've read on some other boards where Steelers fans figured he'd been left of list b/c he was not rated earlier. I know he won the 4 Championships but he was not a key figure in the Steelers early success.

Once you saw Namath make the list, you knew Bradshaw would be on it.

LOL, true. I have no problems w/ Bradshaw on the list but 50 seems very high.

 

[pigskincardboard]

50. Terry Bradshaw (not for his studio work either )
49. Mike Haynes
48. Red Grange
47. Ray Nitschke
46. Roger Staubach (THE Cowboy)
45. Tony Gonzalez
44. Mel Blount
43. Alan Page
42. John Mackey
41. Rod Woodson

IMHO, no way Bradshaw should be rated this low, if at all on this list. And not because of his annoying personality.

I never saw Mackey, but everyone I've ever asked said he's the best TE they ever saw, so it's fitting he's Slightly ahead of Tony Gonzalez.

It's gonna get harder to complain the lower the rankings go, so there's probably not much of discussion left about WHO should be on the list, more about WHERE they should be ranked. I'm still kinda intrigued there were no Special teamers on the list though.

I'm was very shocked to see Bradshaw rated that high. I've read on some other boards where Steelers fans figured he'd been left of list b/c he was not rated earlier. I know he won the 4 Championships but he was not a key figure in the Steelers early success.

Once you saw Namath make the list, you knew Bradshaw would be on it.

LOL, true. I have no problems w/ Bradshaw on the list but 50 seems very high.

I keep missing portions, but the actual numbers don't mean crap to me. THat's all relative. Where I'd judge them is how they ranked the players against their position. The last QB i saw was Moon (i think) and Bradshaw was better than him in my opinion but just by a whisker. If Moon didn't play in the CFL it woudln't be close.

 

[dfr52]

The one on the list that I don't understand at all is Grange. I understand his importance to the league but he wasn't that great of a professional player. I thought the list was to recognize performance more than contributions.

 

[BU54CB]

Here's this week's list:

80. Troy Aikman
79. Emlen Tennell
78. Bruce Matthews
77. Tony Dorsett
76. Art Shell
75. Darrell Green
74. Marion Motley
73. Ozzie Newsome
72. Jonathan Ogden
71. Paul Warfield

Players have just gotten bigger, stronger, and faster. It has everything to do with training methods and opportunity, I guess. Players from the past ten years should always dwarf the previous century except for the occasional plateau.

If you compared Jonathan Odgen and Orlando Pace to Rosie Brown and Jim Parker, there's just no comparison. Quite frankly, when I think about how early Odgen/Walter Jones/Pace would deal with Lawrence Taylor, I think they'd dominate him easily.

I think if you took the measurables and skill sets from Randy Moss vs. Jerry Rice, Moss comes out in a landslide.

There are very few players that you could transplant in any generation. I think there are five to ten backs that play right now that are better than Walter Payton.Just watching games of Unitas, it's almost impossible to compare him to a recent QB because the systems were so incredibly different. Unitas was perfectly suited for his generation, but who knows if he could've read zone-blitzes consistently.

When you compare football players across generations, it has to be on a sliding scale where competition is always the median.

If you were just going to list a top-100 -- straight up, no considerations -- they should all be from the past 15 years. That's stupid and boring though and that's why you have to compare them against their competition.

I haven't been around in a long time, but getting sick of SCF so thought I'd check in over here.

I'd be curious to know what 5-10 backs that play right now are better than Walter Payton? I can't think of one back now or in the past that can run, catch, block, pass, and play the game at the level he did.

 

[dfr52]

[quote="gt2590":3oigir3z]Here's this week's list:

80. Troy Aikman
79. Emlen Tennell
78. Bruce Matthews
77. Tony Dorsett
76. Art Shell
75. Darrell Green
74. Marion Motley
73. Ozzie Newsome
72. Jonathan Ogden
71. Paul Warfield

Players have just gotten bigger, stronger, and faster. It has everything to do with training methods and opportunity, I guess. Players from the past ten years should always dwarf the previous century except for the occasional plateau.

If you compared Jonathan Odgen and Orlando Pace to Rosie Brown and Jim Parker, there's just no comparison. Quite frankly, when I think about how early Odgen/Walter Jones/Pace would deal with Lawrence Taylor, I think they'd dominate him easily.

I think if you took the measurables and skill sets from Randy Moss vs. Jerry Rice, Moss comes out in a landslide.

There are very few players that you could transplant in any generation. I think there are five to ten backs that play right now that are better than Walter Payton.Just watching games of Unitas, it's almost impossible to compare him to a recent QB because the systems were so incredibly different. Unitas was perfectly suited for his generation, but who knows if he could've read zone-blitzes consistently.

When you compare football players across generations, it has to be on a sliding scale where competition is always the median.

If you were just going to list a top-100 -- straight up, no considerations -- they should all be from the past 15 years. That's stupid and boring though and that's why you have to compare them against their competition.

I haven't been around in a long time, but getting sick of SCF so thought I'd check in over here.

I'd be curious to know what 5-10 backs that play right now are better than Walter Payton? I can't think of one back now or in the past that can run, catch, block, pass, and play the game at the level he did.[/quote:3oigir3z]

Wow, I missed that.

Too be honest I can't think of a single back playing right now who is one the same level as Payton. The only lock for the HOF is LT, the rest haven't done enough.

 

[pigskincardboard]

[quote="dfr52":2c89u9c4][quote="gt2590":2c89u9c4]Here's this week's list:

80. Troy Aikman
79. Emlen Tennell
78. Bruce Matthews
77. Tony Dorsett
76. Art Shell
75. Darrell Green
74. Marion Motley
73. Ozzie Newsome
72. Jonathan Ogden
71. Paul Warfield

Players have just gotten bigger, stronger, and faster. It has everything to do with training methods and opportunity, I guess. Players from the past ten years should always dwarf the previous century except for the occasional plateau.

If you compared Jonathan Odgen and Orlando Pace to Rosie Brown and Jim Parker, there's just no comparison. Quite frankly, when I think about how early Odgen/Walter Jones/Pace would deal with Lawrence Taylor, I think they'd dominate him easily.

I think if you took the measurables and skill sets from Randy Moss vs. Jerry Rice, Moss comes out in a landslide.

There are very few players that you could transplant in any generation. I think there are five to ten backs that play right now that are better than Walter Payton.Just watching games of Unitas, it's almost impossible to compare him to a recent QB because the systems were so incredibly different. Unitas was perfectly suited for his generation, but who knows if he could've read zone-blitzes consistently.

When you compare football players across generations, it has to be on a sliding scale where competition is always the median.

If you were just going to list a top-100 -- straight up, no considerations -- they should all be from the past 15 years. That's stupid and boring though and that's why you have to compare them against their competition.

I haven't been around in a long time, but getting sick of SCF so thought I'd check in over here.

I'd be curious to know what 5-10 backs that play right now are better than Walter Payton? I can't think of one back now or in the past that can run, catch, block, pass, and play the game at the level he did.[/quote:2c89u9c4]

Wow, I missed that.

Too be honest I can't think of a single back playing right now who is one the same level as Payton. The only lock for the HOF is LT, the rest haven't done enough.[/quote:2c89u9c4]

The player that reminds me most of Payton is Clinton Portis. Personally, I think Clinton Portis is/was every bit the back that Walter Payton was with one major difference: health.

I think the days of 300+ carries for 12-13 years are absolutely done. Almost every HOF quality back will follow the LT career path: 6-8 years and then splitting duties. Evaluating career stats is going to be a chore and I can see the HOF screwing up bigtime.

 

[dfr52]

[quote="pigskincardboard":22g91n63][quote="dfr52":22g91n63][quote="gt2590":22g91n63]Here's this week's list:

80. Troy Aikman
79. Emlen Tennell
78. Bruce Matthews
77. Tony Dorsett
76. Art Shell
75. Darrell Green
74. Marion Motley
73. Ozzie Newsome
72. Jonathan Ogden
71. Paul Warfield

Players have just gotten bigger, stronger, and faster. It has everything to do with training methods and opportunity, I guess. Players from the past ten years should always dwarf the previous century except for the occasional plateau.

If you compared Jonathan Odgen and Orlando Pace to Rosie Brown and Jim Parker, there's just no comparison. Quite frankly, when I think about how early Odgen/Walter Jones/Pace would deal with Lawrence Taylor, I think they'd dominate him easily.

I think if you took the measurables and skill sets from Randy Moss vs. Jerry Rice, Moss comes out in a landslide.

There are very few players that you could transplant in any generation. I think there are five to ten backs that play right now that are better than Walter Payton.Just watching games of Unitas, it's almost impossible to compare him to a recent QB because the systems were so incredibly different. Unitas was perfectly suited for his generation, but who knows if he could've read zone-blitzes consistently.

When you compare football players across generations, it has to be on a sliding scale where competition is always the median.

If you were just going to list a top-100 -- straight up, no considerations -- they should all be from the past 15 years. That's stupid and boring though and that's why you have to compare them against their competition.

I haven't been around in a long time, but getting sick of SCF so thought I'd check in over here.

I'd be curious to know what 5-10 backs that play right now are better than Walter Payton? I can't think of one back now or in the past that can run, catch, block, pass, and play the game at the level he did.[/quote:22g91n63]

Wow, I missed that.

Too be honest I can't think of a single back playing right now who is one the same level as Payton. The only lock for the HOF is LT, the rest haven't done enough.[/quote:22g91n63]

The player that reminds me most of Payton is Clinton Portis. Personally, I think Clinton Portis is/was every bit the back that Walter Payton was with one major difference: health.

I think the days of 300+ carries for 12-13 years are absolutely done. Almost every HOF quality back will follow the LT career path: 6-8 years and then splitting duties. Evaluating career stats is going to be a chore and I can see the HOF screwing up bigtime.[/quote:22g91n63]

Interesting, I don't see Portis as an all around back like Payton.

 

[dfr52]

On the NFL Network they reported that the list has 63 offensive players and 37 defensive players. I did not realize how disportionate the list was.

 

[BU54CB]

The player that reminds me most of Payton is Clinton Portis. Personally, I think Clinton Portis is/was every bit the back that Walter Payton was with one major difference: health.

I think the days of 300+ carries for 12-13 years are absolutely done. Almost every HOF quality back will follow the LT career path: 6-8 years and then splitting duties. Evaluating career stats is going to be a chore and I can see the HOF screwing up bigtime.

Clinton Portis?!? First I'd say health is a huge problem for Portis, but even without that, IMO Portis is one of the last backs I'd compare to Payton. Have you ever watched film of Walter Payton? I watched him play his whole career, and I've seen quite a few of Portis' games, can't hold a candle to Payton.

Who are your others in the 5-10 backs that are currently better than Walter Payton?

 

[dfr52]

A couple of surprises tonight w/ Bednarik, Thorpe, and Berry. I thought Thorpe might be in the top 10, Bednarik in the top 20, and Berry not on the list this high.

 

[bigdaddyblue73]

A couple of surprises tonight w/ Bednarik, Thorpe, and Berry. I thought Thorpe might be in the top 10, Bednarik in the top 20, and Berry not on the list this high.

I think as the list finishes out we will see a lot more offensive players and very few defensive ones. I would have put Bednerik higher on the list as well, but that's me.

 

[pigskincardboard]

The player that reminds me most of Payton is Clinton Portis. Personally, I think Clinton Portis is/was every bit the back that Walter Payton was with one major difference: health.

I think the days of 300+ carries for 12-13 years are absolutely done. Almost every HOF quality back will follow the LT career path: 6-8 years and then splitting duties. Evaluating career stats is going to be a chore and I can see the HOF screwing up bigtime.

Clinton Portis?!? First I'd say health is a huge problem for Portis, but even without that, IMO Portis is one of the last backs I'd compare to Payton. Have you ever watched film of Walter Payton? I watched him play his whole career, and I've seen quite a few of Portis' games, can't hold a candle to Payton.

Who are your others in the 5-10 backs that are currently better than Walter Payton?

What about Portis' game doesn't compare? When healthy, he was right up their with Payton in terms of every skill. I never said he was better, but he's certainly similar.

Payton and Emmitt both just got the rock a lot and stayed healthy. I have no clue if that's a skill but I have serious problems rating it as the most important skill.

 

[BU54CB]

The player that reminds me most of Payton is Clinton Portis. Personally, I think Clinton Portis is/was every bit the back that Walter Payton was with one major difference: health.

I think the days of 300+ carries for 12-13 years are absolutely done. Almost every HOF quality back will follow the LT career path: 6-8 years and then splitting duties. Evaluating career stats is going to be a chore and I can see the HOF screwing up bigtime.

Clinton Portis?!? First I'd say health is a huge problem for Portis, but even without that, IMO Portis is one of the last backs I'd compare to Payton. Have you ever watched film of Walter Payton? I watched him play his whole career, and I've seen quite a few of Portis' games, can't hold a candle to Payton.

Who are your others in the 5-10 backs that are currently better than Walter Payton?

What about Portis' game doesn't compare? When healthy, he was right up their with Payton in terms of every skill. I never said he was better, but he's certainly similar.

Payton and Emmitt both just got the rock a lot and stayed healthy. I have no clue if that's a skill but I have serious problems rating it as the most important skill.

Like I said, you must not have watched Walter Payton play. Portis doesn't run or catch as well as Payton did, Portis isn't even close to the blocker Payton was. Walter Payton was a complete back, he could do everything and do it well. Clinton Portis is a good back, but please, better than Walter Payton, I don't think so.

Sure Payton and Emmitt got the rock, so does every other running back that's any good. Chris Johnson gets the rock, so does Adrian Peterson and Frank Gore. That's what you do if you have a good player, you get them the ball. Walter Payton really didn't have much help at the other skill positions, so he was the focus of the offense. Emmitt Smith had HOFers at QB and WR, yet he's still got the most rushing attempts in NFL history. The only similarity between Clinton Portis and Walter Payton is that they play(ed) in the NFL IMO.

You said there are 5-10 backs that currently play today that are better than Walter Payton. The only back you put out there is Portis and then you say he's similar than Payton, not better. I guess I don't understand how you can make a statement like that and not list your 5-10 backs with a supporting argument.

I don't need to make a case for Walter Payton, his place in NFL history and the respect his career receives from anyone in and around the game speaks for itself.

 

[pigskincardboard]

The player that reminds me most of Payton is Clinton Portis. Personally, I think Clinton Portis is/was every bit the back that Walter Payton was with one major difference: health.

I think the days of 300+ carries for 12-13 years are absolutely done. Almost every HOF quality back will follow the LT career path: 6-8 years and then splitting duties. Evaluating career stats is going to be a chore and I can see the HOF screwing up bigtime.

Clinton Portis?!? First I'd say health is a huge problem for Portis, but even without that, IMO Portis is one of the last backs I'd compare to Payton. Have you ever watched film of Walter Payton? I watched him play his whole career, and I've seen quite a few of Portis' games, can't hold a candle to Payton.

Who are your others in the 5-10 backs that are currently better than Walter Payton?

What about Portis' game doesn't compare? When healthy, he was right up their with Payton in terms of every skill. I never said he was better, but he's certainly similar.

Payton and Emmitt both just got the rock a lot and stayed healthy. I have no clue if that's a skill but I have serious problems rating it as the most important skill.

Like I said, you must not have watched Walter Payton play. Portis doesn't run or catch as well as Payton did, Portis isn't even close to the blocker Payton was. Walter Payton was a complete back, he could do everything and do it well. Clinton Portis is a good back, but please, better than Walter Payton, I don't think so.

Sure Payton and Emmitt got the rock, so does every other running back that's any good. Chris Johnson gets the rock, so does Adrian Peterson and Frank Gore. That's what you do if you have a good player, you get them the ball. Walter Payton really didn't have much help at the other skill positions, so he was the focus of the offense. Emmitt Smith had HOFers at QB and WR, yet he's still got the most rushing attempts in NFL history. The only similarity between Clinton Portis and Walter Payton is that they play(ed) in the NFL IMO.

You said there are 5-10 backs that currently play today that are better than Walter Payton. The only back you put out there is Portis and then you say he's similar than Payton, not better. I guess I don't understand how you can make a statement like that and not list your 5-10 backs with a supporting argument.

I don't need to make a case for Walter Payton, his place in NFL history and the respect his career receives from anyone in and around the game speaks for itself.

Are you talking about my assertion of modernity? You can go ahead and pick the five best, ten best, backs in the NFL and they're all better. Of course, that's why we compare players to their competition rather than across eras.

With that said, when you listed Chris Johnson(2 years), Adrian Peterson(3 years) and Frank Gore(5 years), they have a combined 10 years in the NFL. Prior to this year, Gore's averaged 233 rushes per year. Walter Payton had 10-years of over 300 carries.

Over the past 10-20 years, the NFL has become drastically more specialized. A byproduct of this has been a lesser workload for runningbacks. Teams would still rely on workhorse backs long after they'd lost it. They'd also have no qualms about running him 300+ times a year for 10 years. Now, teams have become far more cautious with their superstars.

Anyways, Clinton Portis is a terrific blocker with above average hands and an uncanny ability to get to the second level. His rushing ability has declined massively due to injuries, unfortunately. Everyone seems to undervalue the guy because he broke out under Denver, but he was a terrific all-around back.

 

[BU54CB]

The player that reminds me most of Payton is Clinton Portis. Personally, I think Clinton Portis is/was every bit the back that Walter Payton was with one major difference: health.

I think the days of 300+ carries for 12-13 years are absolutely done. Almost every HOF quality back will follow the LT career path: 6-8 years and then splitting duties. Evaluating career stats is going to be a chore and I can see the HOF screwing up bigtime.

Clinton Portis?!? First I'd say health is a huge problem for Portis, but even without that, IMO Portis is one of the last backs I'd compare to Payton. Have you ever watched film of Walter Payton? I watched him play his whole career, and I've seen quite a few of Portis' games, can't hold a candle to Payton.

Who are your others in the 5-10 backs that are currently better than Walter Payton?

What about Portis' game doesn't compare? When healthy, he was right up their with Payton in terms of every skill. I never said he was better, but he's certainly similar.

Payton and Emmitt both just got the rock a lot and stayed healthy. I have no clue if that's a skill but I have serious problems rating it as the most important skill.

Like I said, you must not have watched Walter Payton play. Portis doesn't run or catch as well as Payton did, Portis isn't even close to the blocker Payton was. Walter Payton was a complete back, he could do everything and do it well. Clinton Portis is a good back, but please, better than Walter Payton, I don't think so.

Sure Payton and Emmitt got the rock, so does every other running back that's any good. Chris Johnson gets the rock, so does Adrian Peterson and Frank Gore. That's what you do if you have a good player, you get them the ball. Walter Payton really didn't have much help at the other skill positions, so he was the focus of the offense. Emmitt Smith had HOFers at QB and WR, yet he's still got the most rushing attempts in NFL history. The only similarity between Clinton Portis and Walter Payton is that they play(ed) in the NFL IMO.

You said there are 5-10 backs that currently play today that are better than Walter Payton. The only back you put out there is Portis and then you say he's similar than Payton, not better. I guess I don't understand how you can make a statement like that and not list your 5-10 backs with a supporting argument.

I don't need to make a case for Walter Payton, his place in NFL history and the respect his career receives from anyone in and around the game speaks for itself.

Are you talking about my assertion of modernity? You can go ahead and pick the five best, ten best, backs in the NFL and they're all better. Of course, that's why we compare players to their competition rather than across eras.

With that said, when you listed Chris Johnson(2 years), Adrian Peterson(3 years) and Frank Gore(5 years), they have a combined 10 years in the NFL. Prior to this year, Gore's averaged 233 rushes per year. Walter Payton had 10-years of over 300 carries.

Over the past 10-20 years, the NFL has become drastically more specialized. A byproduct of this has been a lesser workload for runningbacks. Teams would still rely on workhorse backs long after they'd lost it. They'd also have no qualms about running him 300+ times a year for 10 years. Now, teams have become far more cautious with their superstars.

Anyways, Clinton Portis is a terrific blocker with above average hands and an uncanny ability to get to the second level. His rushing ability has declined massively due to injuries, unfortunately. Everyone seems to undervalue the guy because he broke out under Denver, but he was a terrific all-around back.

You keep telling me to pick the backs, why should I? I'm not the one saying there are 5-10 backs playing today that are better than Walter Payton. Since you can't pick them, I'll assume you feel your statement is erroneous.

Are you saying that the only reason Walter Payton was any good was because he got the ball 300+ times a season? The reason I referred to Johnson, Peterson, and Gore was to assert that when you have a good RB or player for that matter, you get them the ball. Had nothing to do with workload or carries.

I'm not sure what Clinton Portis you watch, but I saw him every game when he played with Denver and many with the Redskins. Never was he a terrific blocker, average at best and still is. There are a ton of backs in the league with above average hands and that can get to the second level. If Portis is such a great back, why does he lack any sort of recognition except for 2 Pro Bowls?

 

[pigskincardboard]

[quote="pigskincardboard":jp9jf2kw]
The player that reminds me most of Payton is Clinton Portis. Personally, I think Clinton Portis is/was every bit the back that Walter Payton was with one major difference: health.

I think the days of 300+ carries for 12-13 years are absolutely done. Almost every HOF quality back will follow the LT career path: 6-8 years and then splitting duties. Evaluating career stats is going to be a chore and I can see the HOF screwing up bigtime.

Clinton Portis?!? First I'd say health is a huge problem for Portis, but even without that, IMO Portis is one of the last backs I'd compare to Payton. Have you ever watched film of Walter Payton? I watched him play his whole career, and I've seen quite a few of Portis' games, can't hold a candle to Payton.

Who are your others in the 5-10 backs that are currently better than Walter Payton?

What about Portis' game doesn't compare? When healthy, he was right up their with Payton in terms of every skill. I never said he was better, but he's certainly similar.

Payton and Emmitt both just got the rock a lot and stayed healthy. I have no clue if that's a skill but I have serious problems rating it as the most important skill.

Like I said, you must not have watched Walter Payton play. Portis doesn't run or catch as well as Payton did, Portis isn't even close to the blocker Payton was. Walter Payton was a complete back, he could do everything and do it well. Clinton Portis is a good back, but please, better than Walter Payton, I don't think so.

Sure Payton and Emmitt got the rock, so does every other running back that's any good. Chris Johnson gets the rock, so does Adrian Peterson and Frank Gore. That's what you do if you have a good player, you get them the ball. Walter Payton really didn't have much help at the other skill positions, so he was the focus of the offense. Emmitt Smith had HOFers at QB and WR, yet he's still got the most rushing attempts in NFL history. The only similarity between Clinton Portis and Walter Payton is that they play(ed) in the NFL IMO.

You said there are 5-10 backs that currently play today that are better than Walter Payton. The only back you put out there is Portis and then you say he's similar than Payton, not better. I guess I don't understand how you can make a statement like that and not list your 5-10 backs with a supporting argument.

I don't need to make a case for Walter Payton, his place in NFL history and the respect his career receives from anyone in and around the game speaks for itself.

Are you talking about my assertion of modernity? You can go ahead and pick the five best, ten best, backs in the NFL and they're all better. Of course, that's why we compare players to their competition rather than across eras.

With that said, when you listed Chris Johnson(2 years), Adrian Peterson(3 years) and Frank Gore(5 years), they have a combined 10 years in the NFL. Prior to this year, Gore's averaged 233 rushes per year. Walter Payton had 10-years of over 300 carries.

Over the past 10-20 years, the NFL has become drastically more specialized. A byproduct of this has been a lesser workload for runningbacks. Teams would still rely on workhorse backs long after they'd lost it. They'd also have no qualms about running him 300+ times a year for 10 years. Now, teams have become far more cautious with their superstars.

Anyways, Clinton Portis is a terrific blocker with above average hands and an uncanny ability to get to the second level. His rushing ability has declined massively due to injuries, unfortunately. Everyone seems to undervalue the guy because he broke out under Denver, but he was a terrific all-around back.

You keep telling me to pick the backs, why should I? I'm not the one saying there are 5-10 backs playing today that are better than Walter Payton. Since you can't pick them, I'll assume you feel your statement is erroneous.

Are you saying that the only reason Walter Payton was any good was because he got the ball 300+ times a season? The reason I referred to Johnson, Peterson, and Gore was to assert that when you have a good RB or player for that matter, you get them the ball. Had nothing to do with workload or carries.

I'm not sure what Clinton Portis you watch, but I saw him every game when he played with Denver and many with the Redskins. Never was he a terrific blocker, average at best and still is. There are a ton of backs in the league with above average hands and that can get to the second level. If Portis is such a great back, why does he lack any sort of recognition except for 2 Pro Bowls?[/quote:jp9jf2kw]

Do you understand the concept of modernity in sports? The closer to genuine athletics, the better chance that era matters.

Here's a graph of the men's 100M dash:

Was Carl Lewis a great sprinter? Of course. Are there 10 guys out there right now that are better sprinters? Yes. Football, especially runningback, is very contingent on athletic abilities. It's not baseball where arguments against modernity would hold weight.

I don't understand why you're having such an issue with this concept.

 

[BU54CB]

[quote="BU54CB":3bz9geid][quote="pigskincardboard":3bz9geid]
The player that reminds me most of Payton is Clinton Portis. Personally, I think Clinton Portis is/was every bit the back that Walter Payton was with one major difference: health.

I think the days of 300+ carries for 12-13 years are absolutely done. Almost every HOF quality back will follow the LT career path: 6-8 years and then splitting duties. Evaluating career stats is going to be a chore and I can see the HOF screwing up bigtime.

Clinton Portis?!? First I'd say health is a huge problem for Portis, but even without that, IMO Portis is one of the last backs I'd compare to Payton. Have you ever watched film of Walter Payton? I watched him play his whole career, and I've seen quite a few of Portis' games, can't hold a candle to Payton.

Who are your others in the 5-10 backs that are currently better than Walter Payton?

What about Portis' game doesn't compare? When healthy, he was right up their with Payton in terms of every skill. I never said he was better, but he's certainly similar.

Payton and Emmitt both just got the rock a lot and stayed healthy. I have no clue if that's a skill but I have serious problems rating it as the most important skill.

Like I said, you must not have watched Walter Payton play. Portis doesn't run or catch as well as Payton did, Portis isn't even close to the blocker Payton was. Walter Payton was a complete back, he could do everything and do it well. Clinton Portis is a good back, but please, better than Walter Payton, I don't think so.

Sure Payton and Emmitt got the rock, so does every other running back that's any good. Chris Johnson gets the rock, so does Adrian Peterson and Frank Gore. That's what you do if you have a good player, you get them the ball. Walter Payton really didn't have much help at the other skill positions, so he was the focus of the offense. Emmitt Smith had HOFers at QB and WR, yet he's still got the most rushing attempts in NFL history. The only similarity between Clinton Portis and Walter Payton is that they play(ed) in the NFL IMO.

You said there are 5-10 backs that currently play today that are better than Walter Payton. The only back you put out there is Portis and then you say he's similar than Payton, not better. I guess I don't understand how you can make a statement like that and not list your 5-10 backs with a supporting argument.

I don't need to make a case for Walter Payton, his place in NFL history and the respect his career receives from anyone in and around the game speaks for itself.

Are you talking about my assertion of modernity? You can go ahead and pick the five best, ten best, backs in the NFL and they're all better. Of course, that's why we compare players to their competition rather than across eras.

With that said, when you listed Chris Johnson(2 years), Adrian Peterson(3 years) and Frank Gore(5 years), they have a combined 10 years in the NFL. Prior to this year, Gore's averaged 233 rushes per year. Walter Payton had 10-years of over 300 carries.

Over the past 10-20 years, the NFL has become drastically more specialized. A byproduct of this has been a lesser workload for runningbacks. Teams would still rely on workhorse backs long after they'd lost it. They'd also have no qualms about running him 300+ times a year for 10 years. Now, teams have become far more cautious with their superstars.

Anyways, Clinton Portis is a terrific blocker with above average hands and an uncanny ability to get to the second level. His rushing ability has declined massively due to injuries, unfortunately. Everyone seems to undervalue the guy because he broke out under Denver, but he was a terrific all-around back.

You keep telling me to pick the backs, why should I? I'm not the one saying there are 5-10 backs playing today that are better than Walter Payton. Since you can't pick them, I'll assume you feel your statement is erroneous.

Are you saying that the only reason Walter Payton was any good was because he got the ball 300+ times a season? The reason I referred to Johnson, Peterson, and Gore was to assert that when you have a good RB or player for that matter, you get them the ball. Had nothing to do with workload or carries.

I'm not sure what Clinton Portis you watch, but I saw him every game when he played with Denver and many with the Redskins. Never was he a terrific blocker, average at best and still is. There are a ton of backs in the league with above average hands and that can get to the second level. If Portis is such a great back, why does he lack any sort of recognition except for 2 Pro Bowls?[/quote:3bz9geid]

Do you understand the concept of modernity in sports? The closer to genuine athletics, the better chance that era matters.

Here's a graph of the men's 100M dash:

Was Carl Lewis a great sprinter? Of course. Are there 10 guys out there right now that are better sprinters? Yes. Football, especially runningback, is very contingent on athletic abilities. It's not baseball where arguments against modernity would hold weight.

I don't understand why you're having such an issue with this concept.[/quote:3bz9geid]

Wow, you're a real treat aren't you?

You fail to answer a majority of my questions, resort to insults, and then throw up a spiffy sprinting chart to try to show just how smart you are.

Bravo, I hope you feel better about yourself and your argument, which doesn't pass the sniff test in my book.