NFL 100 All-Time Team Co-Hosted by Bill Belichick

Pxer

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2007
1,437
Maine
The NFL 100 All-Time team debuts at 8PM ET tonight. If this article is any indication, this thing is going to be special.

Cannot wait.


The RBs are unveiled tonight in part 1 of 6.

The highly anticipated reveal of the pinnacle of NFL excellence will be unveiled on the NFL 100 All-Time Team starting Friday, November 22 at 8:00 PM ET, exclusively on NFL Network. Over the next six weeks, host Rich Eisen alongside Cris Collinsworth and Bill Belichick will be joined by special guests to crown the NFL 100 All-Time Team – a roster of 100 players and 10 coaches named “The Greatest” in their respective positions. Following each premiere of NFL 100 All-Time Team is the NFL 100 All-Time Team Reaction Show, a one-hour live recap show hosted by Chris Rose where the selections from each episode will be debated and discussed.
 
Last edited:

Soxy Brown

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
4,608
Thanks for the reminder!

I can't wait for this. Seems like everyone who touched this thing raved about their experience.
 

Soxy Brown

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
4,608
Damn. Belichick basically summed up what made Emmitt Smith great in like 2-3 sentences. This is awesome.

It's obvious these guys aren't just shooting from the hip. Belichick and Collinsworth must have sat down and watched a ton of old film on these players.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
50,896
San Andreas Fault
It's obvious these guys aren't just shooting from the hip. Belichick and Collinsworth must have sat down and watched a ton of old film on these players.
That’s what they do, the most thorough researching coach of all time in Belichick and the most thorough researching analyst of all time in Collinsworth.
 

Soxy Brown

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
4,608
That’s what they do, the most thorough researching coach of all time in Belichick and the most thorough researching analyst of all time in Collinsworth.
Yeah, I mean, I expected nothing less. But it's still damn impressive to watch. I also think it's worth noting for Collinsworth, who has a lot of detractors on this board. I still think he's better than anybody else in the booth. He's pretty much in Madden territory for me.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,410
I like Collingsworth and am glad to see him get some respect here. He was a pretty good player and he puts his time in researching the teams whose games he has to broadcast.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,229
Was anyone else surprised OJ made the list? He deserves it based on his resume, bit obviously there are other considerations. They certainly seemed to make his segment as brief as possible.
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,435
Payton/Brown/Motley/OJ/Sanders/Dickerson/Sayers/Moore/Campbell/Dutch Clark/Steve Van Buren/Emmitt

first 2 of 10 coaches revealed
Brown and Belichick.

Edit-As of OJ I’m not surprised people remember he was one of the best running backs ever.

Phil Spector makes my 12 best pop record producers list.
 

SoxinSeattle

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 6, 2003
1,720
Here
The Art of Fucking War. He literally just told the world his secret yet very few (no one?) can replicate it. We are so lucky to have BB as a coach.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
50,896
San Andreas Fault
Payton/Brown/Motley/OJ/Sanders/Dickerson/Sayers/Moore/Campbell/Dutch Clark/Steve Van Buren/Emmitt

first 2 of 10 coaches revealed
Brown and Belichick.

Edit-As of OJ I’m not surprised people remember he was one of the best running backs ever.

Phil Spector makes my 12 best pop record producers list.
Dutch Clark was a bit of, make that a big head scratcher for me. He had 606 rushing
attempts for a total of 2772 yards. It’s pretty obvious that they want to make it all inclusive and include players from all or most periods of the league. For a second I thought maybe Bill pulled a fast one because his father Steve played for the same team, the Lions, as Clark. But Clark retired 3 years before the one year Steve Belichick played for the Lions (1941). Clark was also voted player of the decade (1930s). Anyway, I love the history that this series is going to pull out.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
10,594
Dutch Clark was a bit of, make that a big head scratcher for me. He had 606 rushing
attempts for a total of 2772 yards. It’s pretty obvious that they want to make it all inclusive and include players from all or most periods of the league. For a second I thought maybe Bill pulled a fast one because his father Steve played for the same team, the Lions, as Clark. But Clark retired 3 years before the one year Steve Belichick played for the Lions (1941). Clark was also voted player of the decade (1930s). Anyway, I love the history that this series is going to pull out.
I'm all for giving the old guys their due; but if they are going to try and represent the entire history of the game, it seems weird to include a guy like Clark and then not include anyone from the past 20+ years. Swap Clark out for Tomlinson or AP and the list is perfect imo.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
5,547
Needham, MA
I'm all for giving the old guys their due; but if they are going to try and represent the entire history of the game, it seems weird to include a guy like Clark and then not include anyone from the past 20+ years. Swap Clark out for Tomlinson or AP and the list is perfect imo.
Yup. I’m sure they were trying to avoid recency bias but nobody on the list who played since the 90s is a bit odd. I would have included Peterson and dropped Clark.
 

cornwalls@6

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,027
from the wilds of western ma
Tomlinson and Peterson(since, as evidenced with OJ, they're not judging off-field issues) were pretty surprising omissions for me, even factoring in a desire to avoid recency bias. Might have made a case for Dorsett as well. Entertaining watch overall, though. Bill was good, if a little under utilized. Can't wait to see him discuss defensive players, suspect that may really get him expounding.
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
24,306
Very happy for Motleys inclusion that the fullbacks are represented.

I would have added Dorsett or Curtis or LT or Faulk (either one, lol) instead of Clark.
 
Last edited:

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
22,481
Marshall Faulk exclusion is insanity. He’s probably the best all around RB ever.
I tend to agree he shouldn't be excluded, but c'mon....he can't carry Jim Brown's jock as an all-round RB.

I realize it's heretical since many who saw him said he was as great as anyone ever, but Gale Sayer's stats don't really belong on the list---only five years, and in two of them he had 800 running yeards. His return stats are spectacular, obviously, too. Longevity isn't everything, but it does matter. OK, commence fire!!!
 
Last edited:

johnmd20

literally like ebola
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
40,075
New York City
That RB list is a joke. No Faulk renders it useless. Picking some scrubs from 500 years ago just to spread out the time frame is just lame. Jim Brown played a long time ago and he is still remembered for being the best. Dutch fucking Clark?

Yeah, no.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
50,896
San Andreas Fault
I tend to agree he shouldn't be excluded, but c'mon....he can't carry Jim Brown's jock as an all-round RB.

I realize it's heretical since many who saw him said he was as great as anyone ever, but Gale Sayer's stats don't really belong on the list---only five years, and in two of them he had 800 running yeards. His return stats are spectacular, obviously, too. Longevity isn't everything, but it does matter. OK, commence fire!!!
Could say Sayers was the Sandy Koufax of football (longevity). Watching clips of Sayers and Sanders, Sanders made so many oh my god cuts but you could at least see him all the time. Sayers would be in one place and then you would see him in another place he could cut so fast. Seemed that way anyway. Sayers belonged on that list last night, IMO.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,801
St. Louis, MO
I tend to agree he shouldn't be excluded, but c'mon....he can't carry Jim Brown's jock as an all-round RB.

I realize it's heretical since many who saw him said he was as great as anyone ever, but Gale Sayer's stats don't really belong on the list---only five years, and in two of them he had 800 running yeards. His return stats are spectacular, obviously, too. Longevity isn't everything, but it does matter. OK, commence fire!!!
It’s impossible to know how Brown would have fared in a passing era but Faulk’s peak was 4 straight seasons of 80+ catches in addition to his 1300-1400 yards on the ground. No one came close to that kind of output over multiple years.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
10,594
The guy I think with the best case is Eric Dickerson. Underrated historically, find me a better peak than what he did for the first six seasons of his career.
 

Soxy Brown

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
4,608
I think some here are overrating Faulk due to his awesome peak, which was his first 3 seasons in St. Louis. He fell off of a cliff pretty hard after that, struggling with injuries and never breaking 1,000 yards rushing from 2002-2005. His play declined with each passing year, eventually getting supplanted as the starting RB by Steven Jackson in 2005. Faulk retired after that season.

He was very good with the Colts, but not to the level that he was with the Rams. He was considered one of the top RBs, and teams definitely had to gameplan for him. But nobody considered him to be this dominant, unstoppable player or anything. That didn't happen until he went to St. Louis. I mean, Faulk blowing up with the Rams wasn't completely out of nowhere, but I remember it being surprising when it happened. Like, damn, we all knew Faulk was good. But we didn't know he was this good.

But, again, he only did that for 3 seasons. Which isn't nothing, but Faulk strikes me as a weird hill to die on. Sure, Faulk was the scariest player in the league from 1999-2001. Outside of that fantastic stretch, he was just another very good running back. I don't really see what separates him from guys like Tomlinson or Curtis Martin.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
2,852
Imaginationland
He lead the league in yards from scrimmage the year BEFORE that insane three year peak. Remove those three seasons and he still averaged nearly 1,400 all purpose yards and 8.5 TDs per season in 9 years, which is still pro-bowl level and borderline HOF. And about that peak, you could make a decent argument that that those three years were better than any skill player in history. His AV over those three seasons was 69. Jim Brown's three year best was 66 (granted he played 2 fewer games), Rice's three year best was 60, Sanders' was 50, OJ was 58, Emmitt was 57. No one else was even close, or played before the stat could be calculated.

He's also unequivocally the best receiving RB in history (most receiving yards, 2nd most catches, 2nd most TDs) and 4th all time in yards from scrimmage (although Gore will pass him soon). It's fair to say he had a short peak, but that's the case with most RBs, and few were ever on his level (you could certainly argue his peak stands alone atop the mountain). He was the greatest player on one of the greatest offenses in history. It's an absolute joke that he's not on this list.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,801
St. Louis, MO
He lead the league in yards from scrimmage the year BEFORE that insane three year peak. Remove those three seasons and he still averaged nearly 1,400 all purpose yards and 8.5 TDs per season in 9 years, which is still pro-bowl level and borderline HOF. And about that peak, you could make a decent argument that that those three years were better than any skill player in history. His AV over those three seasons was 69. Jim Brown's three year best was 66 (granted he played 2 fewer games), Rice's three year best was 60, Sanders' was 50, OJ was 58, Emmitt was 57. No one else was even close, or played before the stat could be calculated.

He's also unequivocally the best receiving RB in history (most receiving yards, 2nd most catches, 2nd most TDs) and 4th all time in yards from scrimmage (although Gore will pass him soon). It's fair to say he had a short peak, but that's the case with most RBs, and few were ever on his level (you could certainly argue his peak stands alone atop the mountain). He was the greatest player on one of the greatest offenses in history. It's an absolute joke that he's not on this list.
Sums it up pretty well. And he was far better than Emmitt, who followed the holes created by the greatest OL of all time.
 

Soxy Brown

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
4,608
I'm not saying Faulk wasn't a great player (though saying he was "far better" than Emmitt Smith is complete insanity). But this is the top 100 NFL players of all-time. There's gonna be some tough cuts. I probably wouldn't take issue with Faulk being on the list, but I don't find it to be some grave miscarriage of justice or anything.

Also, if you get to ding Emmitt Smith for his fantastic o-line, I get to ding Marshall Faulk for only putting up HOF worthy numbers when he had Peyton Manning and Kurt Warner as his QBs. Which, coincidentally I'm sure, happened to be his four strongest statistical seasons. His numbers weren't nearly as impressive when guys like Jim Harbaugh and Marc Bulger were behind center.

If you value peak very highly, sure, Faulk is your guy. But that's all he's got. He's all peak. There's not much else there to hang your hat on.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
2,852
Imaginationland
Also, if you get to ding Emmitt Smith for his fantastic o-line, I get to ding Marshall Faulk for only putting up HOF worthy numbers when he had Peyton Manning and Kurt Warner as his QBs. Which, coincidentally I'm sure, happened to be his four strongest statistical seasons. His numbers weren't nearly as impressive when guys like Jim Harbaugh and Marc Bulger were behind center.

If you value peak very highly, sure, Faulk is your guy. But that's all he's got. He's all peak. There's not much else there to hang your hat on.
The bolded is pretty disingenuous. He played one year with Manning, when Manning was a rookie and throwing 28 interceptions with a QB rating of 71. Even 20 years ago, those passing numbers were awful (Manning led the league in interceptions). Before Faulk was traded to the Rams, he made 3 pro bowls and lead the league in yards from scrimmage playing with a rookie QB. As for Warner, before he played with Faulk he played for the Amsterdam Admirals. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I know which guy was more responsible for their success.

If you value peak highly enough, you can make an argument for Faulk as the best RB of all time (I wouldn't make it, but it's not ridiculous). Beyond that, he's 4th all time in yards from scrimmage and 7th all time in TDs scored. He's got the peak, he's got the counting stats, and he's got the team success. His exclusion from the list over some of the players mentioned above is ridiculous.
 

Soxy Brown

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
4,608
Yes, Faulk was so great a player that the Colts felt perfectly comfortable trading him away and spending the #4 overall pick on his replacement, Edgerrin James. James proceeded to lead the NFL in rushing yards in both of his first two years in the NFL, putting up far better numbers than Faulk ever did with the Colts. Should James be on the list too?

There's a bunch of Marshall Faulks. He's not special.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
1,458
Yes, Faulk was so great a player that the Colts felt perfectly comfortable trading him away and spending the #4 overall pick on his replacement, Edgerrin James. James proceeded to lead the NFL in rushing yards in both of his first two years in the NFL, putting up far better numbers than Faulk ever did with the Colts. Should James be on the list too?

There's a bunch of Marshall Faulks. He's not special.
Not special is overstating it, but this is close to where I am on Faulk. He didn't have the physical dominance of a Brown or Peyton or Sanders to get into the elite tier of RBs. The elite tier needs to look like men among boys. I would put Peterson higher than Faulk.
 

Soxy Brown

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
4,608
Yeah, you're right. I'm fired up and overstating my position. Faulk at his peak was awesome. I just don't get the outrage over him not being on this list. It's the entire body of work, not what you did for 1/3 of your career.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
2,852
Imaginationland
Edgerrin James is underrated historically. 3 seasons of 20+ AV, something only 5 other players at any position can say (Faulk also accomplished this feat). His Colts' numbers are better, but unlike Faulk who played next to Jim Harbaugh (and rookie Manning), James played with the Manning who won a couple of MVPs. James being a pro-bowler was the only reason the Colts don't get killed for trading away Faulk right before he had arguably the most statistically dominant stretch any RB has ever had. Again, it's not just his peak, his career numbers are incredibly impressive - it's hard for me to get past 4th all time in yards from scrimmage, 7th in TDs and the best receiving RB in history and to conclude he isn't one of the best dozen backs ever. You could expand his peak to 5 years and get an average of about 2100 yards from scrimmage, 16 TDs, nearly 5 yards per carry and 80 catches per year. How many guys on the list above have a 5 year stretch like that?

Stepping back, I'm hoping this isn't a sign that players from the last few decades aren't about to get short changed. 12 RBs picked and Emmitt is the only one whose played in the last 20 years (and he clearly did his best work before that)?
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
6,579
I’m pretty sure that there will be guys like Brady, Peyton, Brees, Moss, Gronkowski, Gonzalez, Gates, Watt, Revis, Rodgers, etc on the list. There should be sufficient representation from the last 20 years.
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
2,978
Burrillville, RI
I think their comment at the start of the show was kinda on point. “It used to be a running back league.”
Teams relied on stud RBs more up to (through?) the 90s so it makes sense to me that most of these guys pre-date “present” times.
I would be that the WR group is much more contemporary with the exception of Rice and maybe guys like Swann and Monk
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
3,274
around the way
I love that Faulk and Tomlinson didn't make the list. Bill should send them both a basket of sour grapes and a hand-written note of why they didnt.
 

edoug

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,289
I don't know whose argument it helps (or hurts) but Frank Gore is now the 3rd leading rusher of all time.
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,435
I love that Faulk and Tomlinson didn't make the list. Bill should send them both a basket of sour grapes and a hand-written note of why they didnt.
He should tell Faulk that he looked crappy on the practice tapes.