I love on SoSH we're debating in Faulk was overrated or an all-time great because of Frank Gore when this site would die on a hill for Pedro's peak vs. career counting guys.
There's real value in longevity and consistency. I don't know if anyone is arguing that Gore was *better* than Faulk.I love on SoSH we're debating in Faulk was overrated or an all-time great because of Frank Gore when this site would die on a hill for Pedro's peak vs. career counting guys.
The Colts were also 27th, 27th, 25th, and 28th in rushing attempts during those seasons. They weren't really trying to run the ball.Again, 27th, 28th, 28th, 28th. The rushing ranks for the Colts in the four years prior to Faulk getting there (there were 28 teams in the league).
In Faulk's rookie year, they were 4th.
Tell me how the advanced stats take into account the worst offensive line in the NFL, arguably the worst QB in the game, and a team that was so bad defensively that they were playing from behind all the time. I'll hang up and listen.
Maybe? I honestly don't know. It's possible that I'm undervaluing Faulk's contributions in the receiving game. I think that I'm properly valuing them, but I do put more weight on a running back's ability to run the football than I do his ability to catch it. Especially when discussing the greatest running backs of all time. Maybe I shouldn't? I don't know. I've honestly asked myself that question. Receiving matters, of course. Everything matters. I'm not sure anything matters more than running the football, though, and how you played when you did that.And you keep talking about Faulk's career with the Colts and using cumulative numbers, while ignoring the fact that for the entire season that he averaged 3.0ypc, he was injured. The other 4 years he was there, he averaged 4.1, 3.7, 4.0, 4.1 playing behind a bunch of turnstiles and with QB's that literally could not throw the ball, which didn't matter because they didn't have receivers who could catch it anyway. Emmitt Smith's career average was 4.2 with Dallas (3.3 with Arizona in his last 2 years) playing behind the best offensive line the game has arguably ever seen.
Then you add in the fact that Faulk could actually catch and run with the ball and he blows away guys like Emmitt. Emmitt averaged 6.3ypr on 515 career catches. Faulk averaged 9.0ypr on 767 receptions (it was 9.4ypr in his "mediocre" days with Indy).
So, is Faulks' ability to catch the ball, way more often than Emmitt, and get 2.7ypr more than Emmitt when he did catch it, more valuable than the .1ypc that Emmitt averaged rushing the ball. Oh wait, over their careers, Emmitt averaged 4.2ypc and Faulk averaged 4.3ypc. Who is the inefficient volume runner again?
Or are we just going to keep ignoring Faulk's ability to catch the ball? Because it's only about rushing?
A lot of people dinging Emmitt in this thread.I used to always say "Emmitt Smith would hit the hole, make a linebacker miss and get 10 yards. Barry Sanders and Marshall Faulk would make 3 guys miss, then get to the LOS, then make 2 more guys miss, and get 10 yards)." Emmitt was a great back, but he wasn't Sanders or Faulk. The only reason Faulk isn't on this list is because they chose to pick guys from basically each decade. I would wager that every GM in the NFL would take Marshall Faulk in the top 5-6 if they were doing a RB draft today.
I remember watching this game live and it can't possibly be overstated how epic this game was from Emmitt Smith. He had a separated shoulder and was completely unstoppable.The ultimate Emmitt game. The Cowboys and Giants are both 11-4 . The winner of the game gets the division and home field advantage. The loser plays the following week in wildcard game. He separates his shoulder near the end of the first half. The game goes into OT. The Cowboys winning drive is basically a one armed Smith running and catching. He went for 168 rushing and 10 catches for 61. The o line guys were picking him up after plays. 78 yards came after the shoulder separation.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVZoJWXA8OE
Collinsworth asked him how he knew all the old time players and he said from reading the backs of their football cards. His Mom didn’t throw his out. When he said that, he put himself equal to any kid whose Mom also didn’t throw them out. Cool.Tonight's episode was so good, with so many great stories. All of the LT stories, Joe Greene's Coke commercial story, Belichick's Rolling Stones story at the end. Just awesome stuff.
Yeah, especially now that the greatest player in the history of the NFL, the real LT, has now been mentioned. No NFL Network for YouTube TV'ers.Is there a place to watch these online?
I caught the entire first episode (RBs) on Youtube. Not an official source, but I find most NFL Network programming can be found on Youtube not long after it airs.Is there a place to watch these online?
This video contains content from NFL, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.I caught the entire first episode (RBs) on Youtube. Not an official source, but I find most NFL Network programming can be found on Youtube not long after it airs.
Belichick is great on this show, as you said his story at the end was great, he's an encyclopedia of football knowledge, he's so at ease with these guys in front of a camera vs how he is with the Boston media, which apparently he has disdain for and who can blame him, they are by and large a bunch of nitwits.Tonight's episode was so good, with so many great stories. All of the LT stories, Joe Greene's Coke commercial story, Belichick's Rolling Stones story at the end. Just awesome stuff.
I haven't watched it, but some of the reports say he called LT the 'greatest defensive player ever' which is a change from what I've heard before, which is 'greatest player ever'Collinsworth asked him how he knew all the old time players and he said from reading the backs of their football cards. His Mom didn’t throw his out. When he said that, he put himself equal to any kid whose Mom also didn’t throw them out. Cool.
Good that they had LT on the show, who BB thinks is the best player ever.
If it was Reiss and Curran asking him about NFL history he'd be the same with them. It's the fact that there's no value to him in giving out information about Marcus Cannon's health that separates how he talks about that as compared to how he talks about LT.Belichick is great on this show, as you said his story at the end was great, he's an encyclopedia of football knowledge, he's so at ease with these guys in front of a camera vs how he is with the Boston media, which apparently he has disdain for and who can blame him, they are by and large a bunch of nitwits.
Marshall Faulk never led the league in rushing yards, which is probably the best case that can be made against him for this list. Marshall Faulk could block, and was great at the goal line and inside the 20. He also did not fumble a lot. Barry Sanders was a home run hitter, but added little to nothing to the passing game, blocking, or goal line/inside the 20.The O-line wasn't good, but they did have Will Wolford, a Pro Bowl LT, for Faulk's first two Colts seasons. Kirk Lowdermilk was a solid center, though he was at the end of his career by then. Once those guys left, it got pretty ugly. There's a reason they spent their first two picks in the 97 draft on o-lineman. So, sure, they weren't doing him many favors there. Again, Faulk made up for it with the Rams years, and plenty of stud RBs have had to suffer through poor o-line play (Barry Sanders says hi).
They won two playoff games against the Chargers and Chiefs. Each of those teams had 4 turnovers. Marshall Faulk and Barry Sanders have little to mention from their playoff stats, while Emmitt Smith has an All-Pro season in 17 playoff games.Also, if Faulk was the only player worth anything on those Colts teams, how do you square that with the fact that the only deep playoff run they ever made happened when he wasn't playing? I guess the argument would be, they wouldn't even have gotten there without Faulk (true). And that Colts team really had some good luck in the playoffs (also true).
But that doesn't change the fact that they came a dropped hail mary away from making the Super Bowl, and Marshall Faulk contributed basically nothing in any of their three playoff games. Kind of hurts your case that Faulk was dragging this team around by his bootstraps, I would say.
I think you're directionally correct, but that's also not quite true. As we all know, Belichick really lives by the maxim "the game is about the players", and has a legitimate reverence for those who actually suit up and go make plays. If it's players asking him anything, he falls over himself to help, he can't give enough, and the little anecdotes we hear creep out of Foxboro from time to time back that up. Secondarily, if it's NFL Films specifically asking him for something, his appreciation for the Sabols and what they've done for the NFL and the professionalism with which they catalogued the game moves him to say yes when they ask, whereas to ANY other organization, he'd say no. He said as much back in 2009 when they did the season-long documentary there, that he'd normally not entertain the idea, but when NFL Films comes calling, he makes room. He has no use for any media people except for NFL Films. I think he'd sooner retire than have to put up with Hard Knocks, for example, since that's like 20% NFL Films and 80% HBO.If it was Reiss and Curran asking him about NFL history he'd be the same with them. It's the fact that there's no value to him in giving out information about Marcus Cannon's health that separates how he talks about that as compared to how he talks about LT.
I agree with you about Reiss, Mike is a super nice person, have chatted with him a few times at my local post office as he ironically bought my best friends parents house after his Mother died and his family sold it several years ago. Curran I'm not so sure about, but your general point stands in that he loves to talk about the history of the game, doing press conferences during the week and after games are not in his wheelhouse, there are certain questions he's not going to answer, yet reporters feel compelled to ask them anyway knowing full well he's going to dodge the question.If it was Reiss and Curran asking him about NFL history he'd be the same with them. It's the fact that there's no value to him in giving out information about Marcus Cannon's health that separates how he talks about that as compared to how he talks about LT.
It's probably:I haven't watched it, but some of the reports say he called LT the 'greatest defensive player ever' which is a change from what I've heard before, which is 'greatest player ever'
If so, wonder if that sets up something on the QB episode? Anyone who saw it live able to confirm he limited it to defense last night?
and good ole Ray Lewis ain’t exactly squeaky clean.It’s one of those weird things that everyone always talks about OJ’s murders, but nobody seems to remember LT actually plead guilty to two counts of statutory rape of a 16 year old girl who was being trafficked. He’s a charismatic guy, but so was OJ and I assume they didn’t have him joking around with Bill on camera.
I thought it was kind of alarming that the first two players they brought out where Ray Lewis and Lawrence Taylor. Was Ray Carruth not available?It’s one of those weird things that everyone always talks about OJ’s murders, but nobody seems to remember LT actually plead guilty to two counts of statutory rape of a 16 year old girl who was being trafficked. He’s a charismatic guy, but so was OJ and I assume they didn’t have him joking around with Bill on camera.
No but I have some recordings on our online DVR streaming site for Comcast, so if someone like @brandonchristensen wants to stream-download it and put it on Vimeo, I can help make that happen.Can this series be seen online anywhere?
Eh, I don’t care if they reserve some spots for the old guys. If you want to celebrate 100 years of the game, you can’t ignore the first 35 years of the game just because the sport was more primitive back then.I have less of an issue with that than the list having people from the 30s. There are so many issues with taking players/teams whatever from that era.
1920s/30s NFL was a niche league at best and seeing guys like Earl Clarke make the list is just dopey. I don't even like LT or Faulk, but these guys had almost as many yards in their best season that Clarke did in his career.
- League wasn't integrated
- League wasn't even populated
- The level of play / coaching / competition would be worse than FBS schools today.
The list is way too over populated with stuff from when no one gave a shit about the league. Reminds me of baseball guys who try to form a coherent argument about Bill Dahlen being an all time great shortstop because he has a bunch of defensive WAR from 1891 or whatever.
That might be a function of the positions chosen though. Defense and running the ball aren't exactly calling cards of the past couple decades. I bet QB/WR/TE are going to lean more modern.Eh, I don’t care if they reserve some spots for the old guys. If you want to celebrate 100 years of the game, you can’t ignore the first 35 years of the game just because the sport was more primitive back then.
The lack of modern players is a real problem. Out of the 26 players named last week, only one player, Ray Lewis, played even one season in the 2010s, and only six of the players played at all in the 2000s, with most of that being at the tail end of their careers (Randle, White, Smith). At the same time, 14 of the players played in the 1970s.
That is stupid. There has never been a time when defense wasn't extremely important, including today. Yes, offenses pass the ball more, but since 1960, scoring in the NFL has basically been right around 20 to 22 points per game every single year.That might be a function of the positions chosen though. Defense and running the ball aren't exactly calling cards of the past couple decades. I bet QB/WR/TE are going to lean more modern.
I feel like offense fetishizes skill while defense fetishizes aggression. It's not surprising the old school defensive players are favored - they were allowed to beat the shit out of people. Idolizing the defenses of the 70s is praising concussions, forearm shivers, piledriving QBs, slapping WRs upside their heads. You know, the good ol' days.That is stupid. There has never been a time when defense wasn't extremely important, including today. Yes, offenses pass the ball more, but since 1960, scoring in the NFL has basically been right around 20 to 22 points per game every single year.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/scoring.htm
To argue that there are not as many worthy defensive players from today as there were from the 70s seems really ignorant. We may think that defenses of the 1970s were better, or more important, but the reality is that defenses today are just as important and arguably better, given rule changes that supposedly favor the offense. What the players today don't have is decades of nostalgia in the eyes of sportswriters and old players/coaches, or decades of NFL glamorizing them. In today's game it has never been more important to have an elite pass rusher.
I'll grant you that having a singular star running back is less important today than in the past, so naturally RBs of prior decades are going to stand out more. That still doesn't excuse at least having one RB from the 2000s on the list; if we have to have Dutch Clark we should have Adrian Peterson or LT. But that 26 number I was referring to was just the DL and LBs they named from the last episode; and frankly it is hard for me to take it seriously when it has been so dismissive of the last 20 years of football.
Thanks for the kind words.That is stupid. There has never been a time when defense wasn't extremely important, including today. Yes, offenses pass the ball more, but since 1960, scoring in the NFL has basically been right around 20 to 22 points per game every single year.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/scoring.htm
To argue that there are not as many worthy defensive players from today as there were from the 70s seems really ignorant. We may think that defenses of the 1970s were better, or more important, but the reality is that defenses today are just as important and arguably better, given rule changes that supposedly favor the offense. What the players today don't have is decades of nostalgia in the eyes of sportswriters and old players/coaches, or decades of NFL glamorizing them. In today's game it has never been more important to have an elite pass rusher.
I'll grant you that having a singular star running back is less important today than in the past, so naturally RBs of prior decades are going to stand out more. That still doesn't excuse at least having one RB from the 2000s on the list; if we have to have Dutch Clark we should have Adrian Peterson or LT. But that 26 number I was referring to was just the DL and LBs they named from the last episode; and frankly it is hard for me to take it seriously when it has been so dismissive of the last 20 years of football.
Watt should absolutely be on the list. He is a 3x DPOY award winner, tied for the most ever with LT. Yeah, he has been injured and missed some seasons, but his cumalitive resume even with those injuries and still being 30, is already a better resume than a guy like Selmon. And if a guy like Sayers can be on the team for a great five season career, why can't Watt or Donald (2x DPOY, 4x First team all-pro) be included as an active player?Thanks for the kind words.
Defense is obviously still important, but the way defense is played and the focus on defensive stars is significantly different. With the increased focus on the passing game (and decrease in the importance of the running game), DBs and scheme are more important than they used to be. And I think that will also be reflected in the DB selections. The front seven sees a lot more rotation than it used to, with fewer and fewer 3 or 4 down players. Many pass rush specialists aren't particularly great against the run.
But, on a more specific note, I don't really see any Linebackers that I think should have made the list. Who's the best true LB from after 2000 who didn't make the list? Probably Urlacher? I could see an argument between him and Brooks, but beyond that I don't see anyone really even sniffing this list. Check the all-decade teams for the 2000's and 2010's. Not much there in terms of all-time greatness.
At interior line, I could see Warren Sapp. But that's about it. Aaron Donald could be there someday, but hasn't played long enough yet. Then who? Richard Seymour? Excellent player, but not the type who makes a list like this. If you consider JJ Watt an inside player, he looks and played the part, but he can't stay healthy and hasn't played enough.
The biggest area you may have a legit gripe with is DE/Edge. Miller, Strahan, Peppers, and Taylor all seem like legit options. However, they only had 7 edge spots on the team. Do you feel confident that any of those guys are top 7 edge players of all time? I wouldn't put any of them in the Bruce Smith - Reggie White class, for sure, but beyond that reasonable people could disagree.
Anyways, the overall point I'm making is that I think the shift in how the game is played is dictating some of the bias toward older players so far. I think we'll see a ton of more recent players popping up in upcoming lists. If QB/WR/TE/CB/S are all 70's dominated then I'll agree with you.
Yeah it is really stupid. The dismissal of players from the 2000s is embarrassing. Champ Bailey is the greatest cornerback of all-time. Let's pretend that Willie Brown, Mike Haynes and Mel Blount are better than him though even though they thrived in an era where passing wasn't nearly as important.Any nitpicks on defensive backs/special teams?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001084661/article/nfls-alltime-team-defensive-backs-special-teams-revealed?networkId=4595&site=.news&zone=story&zoneUrl=url%3Dstory&zoneKeys=s1%3Dstory&env=&pageKeyValues=plyr%3Dadam_vinatieri&sr=amp
This is certainly a take. Mel Blount and Mike Haynes were both unanimous selections.Yeah it is really stupid. The dismissal of players from the 2000s is embarrassing. Champ Bailey is the greatest cornerback of all-time. Let's pretend that Willie Brown, Mike Haynes and Mel Blount are better than him though even though they thrived in an era where passing wasn't nearly as important.
Look, I don't want to be here telling you those guys were not great, because they absolutely were. But to be reasonable, it is really clear that being a player in the secondary in the 2000s is much different than it was in the 1970s, and in a lot of ways, you have to be much, much better. The rules favor the offense greatly; Blount could have never, ever, gotten away with any of the stuff he pulled in the 1970s. He basically tackled players as they ran down the field, to the point that they had to make significant rule changes regarding illegal contact known as "The Mel Blount Rule." Offensive systems are significantly more complex than in the 70s, the receivers are bigger, stronger and faster, and above all else, passing is such a more significant part of the game than it was 40 years ago, it just makes sense to include more players from the last 20 years.This is certainly a take. Mel Blount and Mike Haynes were both unanimous selections.