NFL Top 100

What I notice about the fans list as opposed to the players list is that 1.) the top players tend to be younger and 2.) the higher ranked players tend to be on either winning football teams or teams poised to BECOME winning football teams.

It's The Top 100 of Players of 2011. By it's very name and definition, it should be the players people feel WILL be the best in 2011 based on their 2010 seasons.

That's why a guy like Clay Matthews, coming off a season where he really should've been Defensive Player of the Year (**** Polamalu) is ranked number 5 in the fan vote ahead of DeMarcus Ware; Ware, great as he is, and he is great, is starting to get into those years where his numbers and stats will, possibly, begin to decline, whereas a guy like Clay Matthews is just coming into his prime, and already has his first Super Bowl ring.

If it's about who the best players in 2011 are supposed to be, I can see Clay doing better that D-Ware.

Same thing with Rodgers. Could you argue Tom Brady is probably the G.O.A.T? Yeah, you could make that argument. But, by every facet...numbers wise, championship wise, team wise, Rodgers had a better 2010 than Brady. So it's not hard to imagine why fans would vote him ahead of Tom Brady?

It seems to me, when fans read "The Top 100 Players of 2011", they vote on who they feel will be the Top 100 Players of 2011. When players vote, they throw all logic out the nearest windows and just vote for whoever based on whatever they want because they weren't given any sort of guidelines or rules.

How does does 14 touchdowns and 15 picks make him the best performer on offense?

It was based off anything he did as a Redskin, it was based off what he did while he was with the eagles. Let's be real about this. I mean it's called the Top 100 Players on 2011, meaning what players will be the best players in 2011. Or at least it does to everyone except the players, who just took the "no criteria" thing and ran with it.

Donovan got a lot of pity votes from the players. Period. I can understand players feeling like he'd been wronged by Mike Shanahan and voting him in, and I can understand then ignoring the players we do have because of that.

But I think the fan vote is closer to how things really are, even though the fan vote has no Redskins on it either.

When you're not a good team you're not going to get focused on, which is sad, because guys like Rak and Fletcher and even Landry deserved to be featured on that list.

Hopefully they use this whole stupid list as motivation.



How do McNabb's stats make him the best offensive player last year? Simply because the rest of the offensive players were mediocre at the very best - - so someone with similarly mediocre performance can be the best.

The reality of 2010 is that no offensive player was a stand-out. Some were hampered by injuries; some had off years; some just aren't very good. That is the way it was in 2010; pretending that it was something different may be comforting and may give false hope for 2011.

The great sports writer of the 30s and 40s, AJ Leibling, said this about false hope:

My favorite period of history was the Middle Ages. If you were born a serf, you lived as a serf and you died as a serf. There was no false hope.

The fan vote takes into accountlots of things that have nothing to do with performance on the field. Look at the fan voting for the MLB All-Star Game if you want an example. Are the 16 starting position players on both teams having the best year in their leagues in 2011. Please do not contort yourself into trying to answer that by saying "Yes". Fans vote for favorites and favorites are not always the best players.

Fans also undervalue some players who are either pains in the ass or are off-field problem children. Examples here might be Michael Vick, Ben Roethlisberger, T.O., Deion Sanders and ...

There are 22 starters on offense and defense. To be in the Top 100 players, a guy needs to be one of the two or three best at his position because some positions - - such as QB, DE, and WR are going to be over-represented.

Based on performance in 2010, which Redskin was one of the top four at his position in the NFL? Only Orakpo comes close to that - - and I would not put him that high on the list of DE/OLBs.

Moss and Cooley's numbers were much better than McNabb's, he was truly mediocre.

Moss and Cooley's numbers were much better than McNabb's, he was truly mediocre.


I see how Moss didn't get in and even CC because he doesn't score many TD's and thats what the league is about but 98? Again I'm just stunned he didnt crack at least 90 or something.. 19.5 Sacks in 2 seasons? Come on

Moss and Cooley's numbers were much better than McNabb's, he was truly mediocre.I don't think McNabb had the best numbers of any offensive player on the Redskins, but Cooley and Moss struggled in the exact same way that McNabb did, and perhaps because of each other.

McNabb had a good year in terms of accruing yards. 3377 was the fourth highest total of his career, and his 7.2 YPA is actually higher than his Philadelphia career average. Likewise, Cooley and Moss also posted above average career totals in the yardage category.

But when we consider anything else except yardage (TDs, Sacks, Fumbles, INTs, Success rates), only Moss comes out looking anything like career average, and that's because Moss' career relative to other starting WRs isn't quite what Cooley's has been compared to TEs or McNabb compared to QBs. So this year was Moss' 2nd or 3rd best of his career, though I didn't really see enough to say "our offense absolutely can't lose this guy."

No matter what the denominator is here, McNabb and his highest frequency targets all come out looking about the same from a stats perspective. I thought Donovan was "meh" in 2010, and I thought the same about Cooley and Moss.

I thought Anthony Armstrong was the offensive MVP because McNabb wouldn't even have hit 3,000 yards without him taking the top off of defenses. But he may have been the only above average player on the entire offense last year.

There are 22 starters on offense and defense. To be in the Top 100 players, a guy needs to be one of the two or three best at his position because some positions - - such as QB, DE, and WR are going to be over-represented.

Based on performance in 2010, which Redskin was one of the top four at his position in the NFL? Only Orakpo comes close to that - - and I would not put him that high on the list of DE/OLBs.Interior linebackers who should rate higher than London Fletcher: Patrick Willis, Brian Urlacher, Ray Lewis. But Bart Scott and Fletcher are in the top 60 active players in the NFL.

I disagree that Orakpo is a snub from this list. The ESPN top ten pass rushers list? Absolutely. Hard to manipulate reality to find 8 rushers more devastating than Orakpo, much less ten. Freeney, Peppers, Ware, Matthews, Trent Cole, Abraham, Hali and we can go either way on Jared Allen/Dumerville/Robert Mathis/Terrell Suggs/Osi Umeniyora vs Orakpo. Orakpo>Mario Williams/James Harrison/Lamar Woodley just in terms of getting to the quarterback. Maybe Cameron Wake should be here too? I don't see it yet.

With that said, every one of those players is a more complete player than Orakpo at this stage of his career. And Dumerville didn't make the top 100 either.

There's a point to be made here and it's that any team who accomplishes anything has one if not two top pass rushers on their team. We're not well off simply because we have Orakpo. Every playoff contender has an Orakpo (with the notable exception of the Pats and Jets). This is the logic behind the Kerrigan pick. In 2009, you needed a Brian Orakpo to even compete defensively. In 2011, you need Brian Orakpo and Ryan Kerrigan, and they both need to be healthy the whole season.

This is just interesting to me. Obviously, no lineman are considered by the DVOA stat.

Highest DVOA amongst Redskins offensive contributors last year (minimum 30 plays):

*QBs and RBs DVOA is a weighted average of receiving/passing and rushing. I did not consider rushing value for the WRs. But if I did, basically I'd be counting five plays where Moss either ran backwards or fumbled, or in one case, did both.

1. Fred Davis 40.0%
2. Clinton Portis 12.1%
3. Anthony Armstrong 7.4%
4. Keiland Williams 3.6%
5. Donovan McNabb 0.7%
6. Santana Moss -2.1%
7. Ryan Torain -3.1%
8. Chris Cooley -7.2%
9. Rex Grossman -19.1%
10. Joey Galloway -41.9%

Playing Grossman for 3 games had a net negative effect on the offense, as you might imagine. Even then, he didn't always get the best effort of his teammates (looking at you, Cooley).

In terms of just doing traditional tight end stuff, Fred Davis is a much better player than Chris Cooley. That doesn't mean there isn't value in Cooley's excellent Patriots-style versatility that Davis can't replicate, just that if you're looking for a starting in-line tight end and you have no offensive creativity (looking at you, Kyle), Davis is the better option.

Did you know the Redskins are going to have to replace Clinton Portis' production next year? Oh boy.