Jerry Rice the G.O.A.T and the rest of the top 10

[John Brickley]

Let the debate begin! NFL films just finished their count down of the 100 greatest football players of all time and Jerry Rice was number one. Pretty hard to argue the numbers on that one. The difference between Rice and the next greatest receiver statistically is freakish.

Truly no one so clearly dominated their position like Jerry Rice, but what about the rest?

10. Dick Butkis
9. Don Hutson
8. Peyton Manning
7. Reggie White
6. Johnny Unitas
5. Walter Peyton
4. Joe Montana
3. L.T.
2. Jim Brown
1. Jerry Rice

What do you think about the order? Any that you would switch around? I think the only change I would probably make is to put L.T. in front of Jim Brown. What do you think?

[David Morris]

Looking at the list, my initial response is to put Peyton Manning at #4, Joe Montana at #6, and Johnny Unitas at #8. Feel free to start the thank fest against me and rain down the points on how I am wrong. If you want to paint it as being a homer to my team, I am fine with that and won't lose any sleep. Statistically speaking, Manning is light years ahead of Montana in every major category, and hasn't even played for the same amount of time. Montana's greatness is due in large part to his 4 super bowl rings, not necessarily his skill as a player. His statistics are comparable to someone like Warren Moon...he has never really been in the discussion for the greatest QB of all time, let alone the Top 10 Greatest NFL players. For Montana, the 4 rings take him further than his own skill as a player would otherwise.

[Jim Abrams]

Looking at the list, my initial response is to put Peyton Manning at #4, Joe Montana at #6, and Johnny Unitas at #8. Feel free to start the thank fest against me and rain down the points on how I am wrong. If you want to paint it as being a homer to my team, I am fine with that and won't lose any sleep. Statistically speaking, Manning is light years ahead of Montana in every major category, and hasn't even played for the same amount of time. Montana's greatness is due in large part to his 4 super bowl rings, not necessarily his skill as a player. His statistics are comparable to someone like Warren Moon...he has never really been in the discussion for the greatest QB of all time, let alone the Top 10 Greatest NFL players. For Montana, the 4 rings take him further than his own skill as a player would otherwise.

Admittedly, I detest Peyton as a football player. Seen his commercial and think he should stick to ping pong with Justin Timberlake. I dono seem like the ping pong type to me. As much as I think he is a mommies boy, who is happy to take the credit when things are going well and all too happy to place blame when they don't I have to admit the man has skills. He has a quick, brilliant, football mind. Can't take a hit, get dirty or overcome great adversity to win (I'm talking about tough, physical football in a hostile stadium, against the nasty winter elements). Just the same you don't collect four championship rings without the ability to win games an attribute that is not recorded in the stats. Montana had the tough gritty play that rightfully puts him ahead of Peyton.

Haven't seen the entire list but assuming L.T. is carring the rock for the jets and not the Giants famous defensive end I can't believe that he finds himself ahead of the all time leading NFL rusher. Am not a Cowboy's fan. Even more so this season but where is Emmit Smith? Doesn't he have three rings and isn't he still the ALL TIME LEADING RUSHER.

Even if the L.T. you mention here is the Giants famous defensive end I still have to ask about Emmit?

[John Brickley]

Montana's greatness is due in large part to his 4 super bowl rings, not necessarily his skill as a player. His statistics are comparable to someone like Warren Moon...he has never really been in the discussion for the greatest QB of all time, let alone the Top 10 Greatest NFL players.

That is a ridiculous statement. The only people that clamor for rings not to be taken into consideration are those who favorite players have not won any (like Marino) or have had a track record of disappointments in big games (like Manning). This game is about winning championships not ammassing statistics and the greatest at that so far is Joe Montana. The man knew how to win. Here is a measure of greatness for you, with a Super Bowl on the line who would you rather have as your QB Manning or Montana? Give me Montana every day of the week.

Montana played in 4 Super Bowls won every one of them and was not intercepted once in any of them. How is that for greatness. Manning will be supremely lucky if he even gets to 4 super bowls. If greatness to you is consistently falling short then Manning is your guy. I just know this, that both Manning and Marino would trade their careers in a heartbeat for Joe's if they could have 4 rings.

[David Morris]

That is a ridiculous statement. The only people that clamor for rings not to be taken into consideration are those who favorite players have not won any (like Marino) or have had a track record of disappointments in big games (like Manning). This game is about winning championships not ammassing statistics and the greatest at that so far is Joe Montana. The man knew how to win. Here is a measure of greatness for you, with a Super Bowl on the line who would you rather have as your QB Manning or Montana? Give me Montana every day of the week.

Montana played in 4 Super Bowls won every one of them and was not intercepted once in any of them. How is that for greatness. Manning will be supremely lucky if he even gets to 4 super bowls. If greatness to you is consistently falling short then Manning is your guy. I just know this, that both Manning and Marino would trade their careers in a heartbeat for Joe's if they could have 4 rings.

John, you misunderstood. It would be a ridiculous statement if I was talking about Montana.


His statistics are comparable to someone like Warren Moon...he has never really been in the discussion for the greatest QB of all time, let alone the Top 10 Greatest NFL players.

[David Morris]

Admittedly, I detest Peyton as a football player. Seen his commercial and think he should stick to ping pong with Justin Timberlake. I dono seem like the ping pong type to me. As much as I think he is a mommies boy, who is happy to take the credit when things are going well and all too happy to place blame when they don't I have to admit the man has skills. He has a quick, brilliant, football mind. Can't take a hit, get dirty or overcome great adversity to win (I'm talking about tough, physical football in a hostile stadium, against the nasty winter elements). Just the same you don't collect four championship rings without the ability to win games an attribute that is not recorded in the stats. Montana had the tough gritty play that rightfully puts him ahead of Peyton.

Haven't seen the entire list but assuming L.T. is carring the rock for the jets and not the Giants famous defensive end I can't believe that he finds himself ahead of the all time leading NFL rusher. Am not a Cowboy's fan. Even more so this season but where is Emmit Smith? Doesn't he have three rings and isn't he still the ALL TIME LEADING RUSHER.

Even if the L.T. you mention here is the Giants famous defensive end I still have to ask about Emmit?

What about some of the great offensive linemen? Bruce Matthews, Anthony Munoz, Jackie Slater. Why not Bruce Smith (DE for the Bills) who had more sacks and tackles than Reggie White? What about Barry Sanders?

Do you have to win a Super Bowl to appear on this this? How exactly is greatness considered? Is it a fair balance between winning on the field and personal statistics? To much weight is put on winning a Super Bowl, when that is a team goal more than anything. I don't think Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson are better than Dan Marino, even though they both won Super Bowls and Dan didn't.

[David Morris]

That is a ridiculous statement. The only people that clamor for rings not to be taken into consideration are those who favorite players have not won any (like Marino) or have had a track record of disappointments in big games (like Manning). This game is about winning championships not ammassing statistics and the greatest at that so far is Joe Montana. The man knew how to win. Here is a measure of greatness for you, with a Super Bowl on the line who would you rather have as your QB Manning or Montana? Give me Montana every day of the week.

Montana played in 4 Super Bowls won every one of them and was not intercepted once in any of them. How is that for greatness. Manning will be supremely lucky if he even gets to 4 super bowls. If greatness to you is consistently falling short then Manning is your guy. I just know this, that both Manning and Marino would trade their careers in a heartbeat for Joe's if they could have 4 rings.

I would assume you think this line of thinking extends into all or sports. So do you think Robert Horry is a better basketball player than Karl Malone?

[Jim Abrams]

What about some of the great offensive linemen? Bruce Matthews, Anthony Munoz, Jackie Slater. Why not Bruce Smith (DE for the Bills) who had more sacks and tackles than Reggie White? What about Barry Sanders?

Do you have to win a Super Bowl to appear on this this? How exactly is greatness considered? Is it a fair balance between winning on the field and personal statistics? To much weight is put on winning a Super Bowl, when that is a team goal more than anything. I don't think Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson are better than Dan Marino, even though they both won Super Bowls and Dan didn't.

Love Matthews, Munoz, Sanders ect. These guys are tough, gritty, hard nose football players. Not convinced they belong in the top 10 ALL TIME BEST, but I think they make the top 100. It seems to me that a superbowl win really is the ultimate goal of the game. I doubt very much that any in the top 100 step on the practice field in late summer and say to their teammates, "Above all I just hope to stay healthy this year." Few step up for the post game interview and say, "It's just an honor to play the game." No, they want to win the super bowl. Individual stats do not win super bowls. So yes I believe that you should have to win a super bowl to be in the top 10. The more rings you have the more you have proved your self on the field (that's not true for kickers and holders).

[David Morris]

Love Matthews, Munoz, Sanders ect. These guys are tough, gritty, hard nose football players. Not convinced they belong in the top 10 ALL TIME BEST, but I think they make the top 100. It seems to me that a superbowl win really is the ultimate goal of the game. I doubt very much that any in the top 100 step on the practice field in late summer and say to their teammates, "Above all I just hope to stay healthy this year." Few step up for the post game interview and say, "It's just an honor to play the game." No, they want to win the super bowl. Individual stats do not win super bowls. So yes I believe that you should have to win a super bowl to be in the top 10. The more rings you have the more you have proved your self on the field (that's not true for kickers and holders).

For all time greatness, it is my opinion that winning a super bowl is part of the measuring stick. It is not the measurement stick, but is part of it. Joseph Addai is not better than Barry Sanders.

[John Brickley]

I would assume you think this line of thinking extends into all or sports. So do you think Robert Horry is a better basketball player than Karl Malone?

No I would not say that Robert Horry is better, but what I am reacting to is the idea that greatness is only measured statistically and that championships are not taken into consideration. As Jim said in the end of the day the point of sports is winning and the greatness is in a large part measured by those that in those championship moments rise to the occasion and achieve greatness, and of those the ones that separate themselves even further are the ones that are able to do that consistently. This is why even though I admit that Manning is a more talented QB than Brady, I would rather have Brady leading my team (and most certainly rather have Montana) because Brady thrives on and rises to the occasion, whereas Manning at times gets that deer in the headlights look, (what Bill Simmons calls the Manning face). If we were going on talent alone I would say that Marino is far and away the best QB ever, because talent wise no one was like him, he was in a class by himself. But greatness has to be more than talent and more than stats.

[John Brickley]

What about some of the great offensive linemen? Bruce Matthews, Anthony Munoz, Jackie Slater. Why not Bruce Smith (DE for the Bills) who had more sacks and tackles than Reggie White? What about Barry Sanders?

Do you have to win a Super Bowl to appear on this this? How exactly is greatness considered? Is it a fair balance between winning on the field and personal statistics? To much weight is put on winning a Super Bowl, when that is a team goal more than anything. I don't think Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson are better than Dan Marino, even though they both won Super Bowls and Dan didn't.

David,

Remember the list is the top 100 not the top 10. Those guys are on the list. But as great as an Anthony Munoz and a Barry Sanders were (and Barry is the greatest running back I have ever seen) they don't belong on the top 10. By the way if you are talking about an o lineman that would belong on the top 10 then the discussion would begin and end with the Hog, John Hannah and not Anthony Munoz.

[Ryan Scott]

I think Montana was too high and, quite honestly, I'd probably put Peyton above him. Unitas is also too high. I miss seeing at least one LT on the list.

Of course, I'm also on board with the idea that the Hall of Fame should include an equal proportion of players to those on the field. That is, there should be five Offensive Lineman inducted for every QB.

[David Morris]

No I would not say that Robert Horry is better, but what I am reacting to is the idea that greatness is only measured statistically and that championships are not taken into consideration. As Jim said in the end of the day the point of sports is winning and the greatness is in a large part measured by those that in those championship moments rise to the occasion and achieve greatness, and of those the ones that separate themselves even further are the ones that are able to do that consistently. This is why even though I admit that Manning is a more talented QB than Brady, I would rather have Brady leading my team (and most certainly rather have Montana) because Brady thrives on and rises to the occasion, whereas Manning at times gets that deer in the headlights look, (what Bill Simmons calls the Manning face). If we were going on talent alone I would say that Marino is far and away the best QB ever, because talent wise no one was like him, he was in a class by himself. But greatness has to be more than talent and more than stats.

In 2003, the ball slips through the hands of receives 3 times, and right into the hands of the safety. (Manning throws for 237 yards, one TD, 4 INTS)
In 2006, Jerome Bettis fumbles on the one yard line. Nick Harper falls down returning it. (Manning throws for 290 yards and one TD)
In 2008, the running back fumbles on the one yard line. (Manning throws for 310 yards and one TD)

Guess whose fault it is they lost all those games in the playoffs?

[John Brickley]

I would assume you think this line of thinking extends into all or sports. So do you think Robert Horry is a better basketball player than Karl Malone?

Just a further thought on this question. It is interesting that you always come up with these kind of comparisons (as further evidenced when you compare Joseph Addi with Barry Sanders) when trying to prove the point that we should not highly value winning when measuring greatness, but this is question does not correspond with reality of the debate. It is not an issue of saying is someone like Robert Horry (who is clearly not in the same league as Karl Malone) better than Malone, no, a more appropriate comparison would be to ask is Kevin Mchale or Tim Duncan better than Karl Malone, then you have a discussion and that is what we are talking about here. So these questions like is Trent Dilfer better than Marino just because he won a championship are not really relevant to the discussion.

[John Brickley]

Here is an interesting question. Does an Adam Vinateiri deserve a place on the top 100?

[Jim Abrams]

In 2003, the ball slips through the hands of receives 3 times, and right into the hands of the safety. (Manning throws for 237 yards, one TD, 4 INTS)
In 2006, Jerome Bettis fumbles on the one yard line. Nick Harper falls down returning it. (Manning throws for 290 yards and one TD)
In 2008, the running back fumbles on the one yard line. (Manning throws for 310 yards and one TD)

Guess whose fault it is they lost all those games in the playoffs?

Again I say, "all too quick to blame someone else when it goes bad." I say top 10 player finds a way to overcome mistakes and win the big game(s). A top 10 of all times guy take responsibility.

[Jim Abrams]

I would assume you think this line of thinking extends into all or sports. So do you think Robert Horry is a better basketball player than Karl Malone?

For me this is like comparing apples and tomatoes. Basket ball is by definition a NON CONTACT sport. I think Manning would be good at basket ball. Can't see Charles Haley playing in the NBA very long. I think top 10 foot ball players of all time should be tough physical Hynes Ward kind of players.

[David Morris]

Here is an interesting question. Does an Adam Vinateiri deserve a place on the top 100?

No. I don't think any kickers should be. Adam Vinateiri is more of a household name because he made the kick when it counted. I'm sure many other kickers would have made the same kicks he did.

[David Morris]

For me this is like comparing apples and tomatoes. Basket ball is by definition a NON CONTACT sport. I think Manning would be good at basket ball. Can't see Charles Haley playing in the NBA very long. I think top 10 foot ball players of all time should be tough physical Hynes Ward kind of players.

I am not comparing the sports. I am comparing the principle that many use that say championships ultimately determine greatness.

[John Brickley]

I am not comparing the sports. I am comparing the principle that many use that say championships ultimately determine greatness.

Yes but you are comparing apples to oranges (or tomatoes to follow Jim's argument). I understand you are not comparing sports but when you compare players like a Joseph Addai to a Barry Sanders you are making an apples to oranges comparison that has no relevance to this discussion. As I suggested before a much more relevant comparison (to use the Karl Malone Robert Horry illustration) would be to compare Malone to Ducan or Mchale and then ask who is better. Pulling out a Trent Dilfer or a Mark Rypien and inserting them into this conversation is meaningless. When we are comparing quarterbacks like Elway, Marino, Manning, Brady, Montana they are in a completely different class then these other players that you are making comparisons with. When you have players like these who have all demonstrated greatness over a sustained period of time the question becomes what separates them from each other and how significant are championships in that separation? I believe they are significant because it is in the championship moment that greatness is demonstrated perhaps more clearly than any other, you don't believe it is significant (though I cannot help but think if Brady and Mannings roles where reversed that you would be singing another tune, the same with Ben in relation to Marino) and that is fine. But I don't find your comparisons of players that are clearly miles apart in skill and what they have accomplished to be very pertinent to this discussion.

[David Morris]

Yes but you are comparing apples to oranges (or tomatoes to follow Jim's argument). I understand you are not comparing sports but when you compare players like a Joseph Addai to a Barry Sanders you are making an apples to oranges comparison that has no relevance to this discussion. As I suggested before a much more relevant comparison (to use the Karl Malone Robert Horry illustration) would be to compare Malone to Ducan or Mchale and then ask who is better. Pulling out a Trent Dilfer or a Mark Rypien and inserting them into this conversation is meaningless. When we are comparing quarterbacks like Elway, Marino, Manning, Brady, Montana they are in a completely different class then these other players that you are making comparisons with. When you have players like these who have all demonstrated greatness over a sustained period of time the question becomes what separates them from each other and how significant are championships in that separation? I believe they are significant because it is in the championship moment that greatness is demonstrated perhaps more clearly than any other, you don't believe it is significant (though I cannot help but think if Brady and Mannings roles where reversed that you would be singing another tune, the same with Ben in relation to Marino) and that is fine. But I don't find your comparisons of players that are clearly miles apart in skill and what they have accomplished to be very pertinent to this discussion.

And I do find it pertinent. Perhaps I would be singing a different tune. The fact of the matter is that Manning and Marino are in that conversation, although they have not been as successful as Brady or Montana. People want to use the super bowl victory as the determining factor for greatness. There is more that separates the top 5 than just rings.

[Steven Martinez]

This conversation is exactly why it is impossible to measure football players who are not of the same position. Jerry Rice is perhaps the greatest receiver but he did it with three Pro-Bowl QBs in pass friendly systems. If he was drafted by another team, say the Pats of the early 80s would he still be the best or would he simply be Irving Fryar? Heck Irving had a much better career once he got to Miami and had Marino throwing him the ball. Football is a total team sport where championships are won and lost by the smallest factors such as punting and line play. One blown assignment can change a play and outcome. For example, In SBXLII the Pats elected to go for it on 4th and long instead of kicking a 49 yard field goal because their coach had no confidence in the kicker. The Pats do not convert and the Giants rally and take the lead and the victory.

So these conversations are fun and generate buzz but they will never be solved. However, I think there should be some guidelines:
1st, If we are going to factor in championships then there needs to be a distinction between eras. For example, we are currently watching the post expansion, free agency era of football (post 1992). All of the teams of the 70s, 80s and early 90s did not have to compete to keep their best players via free agency and with the lack of expansion there were less teams to spread talent around. Since 95 there have been 4 teams added to the mix which spreads players around and so it is hard to build dynasties. This is why the Pats, Colts and Steelers are such elite teams/organizations because they have been successful in an era of uncertainty. So Montana and Rice were great players but they also played on great overall teams that could keep quality players for many years by being able to protect 37 members of the roster every year and could still replace players via the draft because it is essential giving every team an extra third round draft choice every year (What Randy Moss was traded for). So Brady and Manning are great players because they are able to keep their stats high with a revolving door of players. For example, this season Manning has lost his TE for the season, three of his receivers have missed multiple games and his starting RB has missed games and yet he is winning games and putting up numbers. I am not sure Montana could have done that if he lost that many pieces to his teams.

[Benjamin Burch]

Again I say, "all too quick to blame someone else when it goes bad." I say top 10 player finds a way to overcome mistakes and win the big game(s). A top 10 of all times guy take responsibility.

I, once again, would argue that while this sounds nice it is simply not realistic. Overcomes mistakes and wins the big game? What if there is another top-tier QB on the other team overcoming mistakes to win the big game? Is the better one the one that succeeds? What if they both succeed and another player blows it? What if they both would have succeeded but someone on the other defense simply made a brilliant play?

What if they both are succeeding but the other wide receiver makes an unthinkable play? What if the other team kicks an unexpected onside kick, gets a lucky bounce, and recovers?

It's just not realistic. The sun, moon, and stars must align for your team to win a championship in Football and you must possess other great players of that sort of talent if you even want a chance. If Brady is on a team with a poor coach does he win a championship? What about teams with bad defenses? Both?

The fact is that coaching and defense are other, equally important factors that made it even possible for Brady to be in the position to be in the Super Bowl, much less have the sun, moon, and stars align for a victory. (and the same could be said of any championship player).

[Benjamin Burch]

This conversation is exactly why it is impossible to measure football players who are not of the same position. Jerry Rice is perhaps the greatest receiver but he did it with three Pro-Bowl QBs in pass friendly systems. If he was drafted by another team, say the Pats of the early 80s would he still be the best or would he simply be Irving Fryar? Heck Irving had a much better career once he got to Miami and had Marino throwing him the ball. Football is a total team sport where championships are won and lost by the smallest factors such as punting and line play. One blown assignment can change a play and outcome. For example, In SBXLII the Pats elected to go for it on 4th and long instead of kicking a 49 yard field goal because their coach had no confidence in the kicker. The Pats do not convert and the Giants rally and take the lead and the victory.

So these conversations are fun and generate buzz but they will never be solved. However, I think there should be some guidelines:
1st, If we are going to factor in championships then there needs to be a distinction between eras. For example, we are currently watching the post expansion, free agency era of football (post 1992). All of the teams of the 70s, 80s and early 90s did not have to compete to keep their best players via free agency and with the lack of expansion there were less teams to spread talent around. Since 95 there have been 4 teams added to the mix which spreads players around and so it is hard to build dynasties. This is why the Pats, Colts and Steelers are such elite teams/organizations because they have been successful in an era of uncertainty. So Montana and Rice were great players but they also played on great overall teams that could keep quality players for many years by being able to protect 37 members of the roster every year and could still replace players via the draft because it is essential giving every team an extra third round draft choice every year (What Randy Moss was traded for). So Brady and Manning are great players because they are able to keep their stats high with a revolving door of players. For example, this season Manning has lost his TE for the season, three of his receivers have missed multiple games and his starting RB has missed games and yet he is winning games and putting up numbers. I am not sure Montana could have done that if he lost that many pieces to his teams.

Finally, some sense.

[Mike Schutz]

Unitas is also too high.
This list, and the ensuing conversation is fun - possibly because of or in spite of its inherent irrationality.
In addition to the impossibility of comparing positions, comparing eras is very difficult. I saw all of the careers of everyone on the Top 10 of the list - with the exception of Don Hutson, of course, and the first few years of Unitas' career.
It is very difficult for anyone who did not see Unitas to understand how dramatically he changed the game. He was considered the greatest QB in the game in both the 1950s and 1960s. Watching films of his highlights, without the context of the era, it is impossible to compare.

For me, I would rate the top QBs this way:
1. Montana (More than any other position in any team sport, you cannot separate success from ability.)
2. Unitas
3. Manning
4. Marino
5. Baugh
6. Graham
7. Elway
8. Brady
9. Favre
10. Staubach

Which is pretty close to the NFL Top 100 listing.

http://top100.nfl.com/

[David Morris]

This list, and the ensuing conversation is fun - possibly because of or in spite of its inherent irrationality.
In addition to the impossibility of comparing positions, comparing eras is very difficult. I saw all of the careers of everyone on the Top 10 of the list - with the exception of Don Hutson, of course, and the first few years of Unitas' career.
It is very difficult for anyone who did not see Unitas to understand how dramatically he changed the game. He was considered the greatest QB in the game in both the 1950s and 1960s. Watching films of his highlights, without the context of the era, it is impossible to compare.

For me, I would rate the top QBs this way:
1. Montana (More than any other position in any team sport, you cannot separate success from ability.)
2. Unitas
3. Manning
4. Marino
5. Baugh
6. Graham
7. Elway
8. Brady
9. Favre
10. Staubach

Which is pretty close to the NFL Top 100 listing.

http://top100.nfl.com/

Would Favre be higher on most people's lists if he would have retired for good three years ago?

[John Brickley]

Would Favre be higher on most people's lists if he would have retired for good three years ago?

He might have been, though statistically one of his best years ever was last year. I think Farve's problem is that for every game that he wins with some other worldly play, there is a game (usually a big one) that he has lost trying to do the impossible. The least that a great quarterback can do is not cost you games, and unfortunately for Farve that just can't be said about him. He has cost his teams too many games to be higher on the list in my opinion. Now there is no question that he was fantastically gifted, tough as nails, and just a blast to watch, but you are always holding your breath with him, whereas with someone like Montana you always just knew he would pull it out.