|
07-05-2011, 10:06 PM
|
#61 | |
|
Warpath Hall of Fame
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UNITED STATES
Age: 38
Posts: 36,190
|
Re: NFL Top 100
Quote:
Huge numbers every year and his team is always tough to beat.
__________________
“Mediocre people don’t like high achievers, and high achievers don’t like mediocre people.” ― Nick Saban |
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
07-06-2011, 10:02 AM
|
#62 |
|
\m/
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 52
Posts: 99,843
|
Re: NFL Top 100
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2011, 11:19 AM
|
#63 | |
|
Living Legend
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 17,450
|
Re: NFL Top 100
Quote:
NFL Network is just brutal right now. That top 100 show was just terrible. Almost unwatchable. Lindsay Soto is nice to look at and that's about it for that show. Plus they play the same damn commercials over and over and over. Hard Knocks re runs are all they have going for them right now. |
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2011, 03:22 PM
|
#64 | |
|
Playmaker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
|
Re: NFL Top 100
Quote:
Or is this another knee-jerk reaction that "everyone out there hates the Redskins and will do anything to heap disrespect and scorn on the team"? For the record, I would probably put Brian Orakpo on the list as one of the 100 best players in the league. Maybe, I would put London Fletcher there too; but I'm not sure about that. On the offensive side of the ball - - sad as it may be to swallow - - Donovan McNabb was the best performer for the Skins in 2010 and probably that is what the NFL players saw as they cast their ballots.
__________________
The Sports Curmudgeon www.sportscurmudgeon.com But don't get me wrong, I love sports... |
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2011, 03:28 PM
|
#65 |
|
\m/
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 52
Posts: 99,843
|
Re: NFL Top 100
Based on the sad state of this list I would say yes the fans probably know better.
Check out the fan rankings, I think they're much more accurate NFL The Top 100 NFL Players of 2011 As for McNabb being the best offensive performer in 2010? I think guys like Moss, Cooley, T. Williams, and even someone like Torain might have something to say about that. |
|
|
|
|
07-06-2011, 03:40 PM
|
#66 | |
|
Special Teams
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 279
|
Re: NFL Top 100
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2011, 03:41 PM
|
#67 | |
|
Warpath Hall of Fame
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UNITED STATES
Age: 38
Posts: 36,190
|
Re: NFL Top 100
Quote:
Sorry I'm a AR12 fan but Tom Brady is the number 1 Player in the league and has been for a while now especially QB. Look what he has to work with every year folks. Welker is a stud but then..... B.Tate, D. Branch etc
__________________
“Mediocre people don’t like high achievers, and high achievers don’t like mediocre people.” ― Nick Saban |
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2011, 03:42 PM
|
#68 | |
|
Uncle Phil
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 45,256
|
Re: NFL Top 100
Quote:
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You |
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2011, 03:43 PM
|
#69 | |
|
\m/
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 52
Posts: 99,843
|
Re: NFL Top 100
Quote:
I'd take Manning. |
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2011, 03:44 PM
|
#70 |
|
Warpath Hall of Fame
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UNITED STATES
Age: 38
Posts: 36,190
|
Re: NFL Top 100
D.Ware 26?
C Matthews 5? NFLN rankings were better
__________________
“Mediocre people don’t like high achievers, and high achievers don’t like mediocre people.” ― Nick Saban |
|
|
|
|
07-06-2011, 04:04 PM
|
#71 |
|
Special Teams
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 279
|
Re: 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. |
|
|
|
|
07-06-2011, 09:52 PM
|
#72 | |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
|
Re: NFL Top 100
Quote:
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.
__________________
The Sports Curmudgeon www.sportscurmudgeon.com But don't get me wrong, I love sports... |
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2011, 10:01 PM
|
#73 |
|
\m/
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 52
Posts: 99,843
|
Moss and Cooley's numbers were much better than McNabb's, he was truly mediocre.
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2011, 11:15 PM
|
#74 | |
|
Warpath Hall of Fame
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UNITED STATES
Age: 38
Posts: 36,190
|
Re: NFL Top 100
Quote:
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
__________________
“Mediocre people don’t like high achievers, and high achievers don’t like mediocre people.” ― Nick Saban |
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2011, 11:35 PM
|
#75 | |
|
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 37
Posts: 15,994
|
Re: NFL Top 100
Quote:
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.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation. |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
