Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

"ALL-NFL" Mock Draft?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Pro Sports ▸ "ALL-NFL" Mock Draft?
H

HeathAlum21

Senior Member

363 posts
Dec 30, 2009 2:48 PM
Laley23 wrote:
HeathAlum21 wrote: I can't take Peyton Manning because of his lack of post season success. I would take a QB though.
I dont get that argument at all. If Manning wins a SB this year he is the same freaking QB as if he loses. However, if he wins people will vault him to the best ever and if he loses people will say "eh, top 5 but not the best"

It just makes no sense. It isnt even like he is Marino, the guy HAS A SUPER BOWL. I guess its a compliment, he is soooo good, people expect(ed) him to have 3 already with a few more to come.


For the record. Id take Manning first overall.
I didn't say anything about Superbowls. I said overall performance in the post season. Just take a look at his stats in the playoffs, and you will see what I am talking about. Even during the Superbowl run, he didn't perform up to "Peyton Manning's standards".
Dec 30, 2009 2:48pm
Laley23's avatar

Laley23

GOAT

29,506 posts
Dec 30, 2009 3:23 PM
HeathAlum21 wrote:

I didn't say anything about Superbowls. I said overall performance in the post season. Just take a look at his stats in the playoffs, and you will see what I am talking about. Even during the Superbowl run, he didn't perform up to "Peyton Manning's standards".
I COMPLETELY agree that he has struggled big time in some playoff games. I am probably the biggest Colts fan on the site, but like to consider myself unbiased.

I just get tired of the playoff argument. If your arguing his stats in the playoffs than I agree, I took it as the old "he doesnt have the SB rings" argument which is just dumb.

I do agree that his playoffs have been lacking vs his regular seasons. But he can amend it all this year with a SB run.

I guess I mis-understood you.
Dec 30, 2009 3:23pm
N

Nate

Formerly Known As Keebler

3,949 posts
Dec 30, 2009 3:27 PM
I take Manning also.
Dec 30, 2009 3:27pm
C

Cha'DIch

Member

65 posts
Dec 30, 2009 5:13 PM
Jim Brown
Dec 30, 2009 5:13pm
A

Al Capone

18-3 since 2000

1,727 posts
Dec 30, 2009 11:35 PM
Donte Stallworth
O.J. Simpson
Ray Carruth
Ray Lewis

How is that for a killer lineup?
Dec 30, 2009 11:35pm
NNN's avatar

NNN

Senior Member

902 posts
Dec 31, 2009 1:24 AM
Al Capone wrote: Donte Stallworth
O.J. Simpson
Ray Carruth
Ray Lewis

How is that for a killer lineup?
You forgot Jim Tyrer, who would be in the Hall of Fame, on the All-Time Team, and regarded as one of the best ever if not for the circumstances of his demise.
Dec 31, 2009 1:24am
B

BCSbunk

Senior Member

972 posts
Dec 31, 2009 10:57 AM
I would draft John Hannah with my first selection.
Dec 31, 2009 10:57am
S

Sonofanump

Dec 31, 2009 5:07 PM
BCSbunk wrote: I would draft John Hannah with my first selection.
If picking later in the first round I would look at Jim Parker, Tony Munoz or Orlando Pace.
Dec 31, 2009 5:07pm
BlueDevil11's avatar

BlueDevil11

Senior Member

1,911 posts
Jan 1, 2010 10:29 PM
Tim Couch
Jan 1, 2010 10:29pm
D

DaBrowns41

Senior Member

1,304 posts
Jan 1, 2010 10:46 PM
The fact that Jim Brown wasn't mentioned on this first page is frustrating. The best RB/FB to ever play the game of football, and the one poster didn't even mention him on the 75th Anniversary team? Are you fucking kidding?
Jan 1, 2010 10:46pm
NNN's avatar

NNN

Senior Member

902 posts
Jan 2, 2010 12:49 AM
NNN wrote: For what it's worth, here's what the NFL 75th Anniversary Team looked like.

FBs
[size=xx-large]Jim Brown[/size]
Marion Motley
Bronko Nagurski
DaBrowns41 wrote: The fact that Jim Brown wasn't mentioned on this first page is frustrating. The best RB/FB to ever play the game of football, and the one poster didn't even mention him on the 75th Anniversary team? Are you fucking kidding?
You fail.
Jan 2, 2010 12:49am
D

DaBrowns41

Senior Member

1,304 posts
Jan 2, 2010 12:53 AM
NNN wrote:
NNN wrote: For what it's worth, here's what the NFL 75th Anniversary Team looked like.

FBs
[size=xx-large]Jim Brown[/size]
Marion Motley
Bronko Nagurski
DaBrowns41 wrote: The fact that Jim Brown wasn't mentioned on this first page is frustrating. The best RB/FB to ever play the game of football, and the one poster didn't even mention him on the 75th Anniversary team? Are you fucking kidding?
You fail.
That was my fault.

Even though he was technically a fullback, however, he should be listed as a halfback because that's the role he played.

But yeah, that was my fault.
Jan 2, 2010 12:53am
NNN's avatar

NNN

Senior Member

902 posts
Jan 2, 2010 12:57 AM
Then take it up with the guys who selected the team to begin with (HOFers, NFL executives, ex-players, and historians). They said the only real hand-wringing was whether or not John Mackey should have made it on.
Jan 2, 2010 12:57am
A

Al Capone

18-3 since 2000

1,727 posts
Jan 2, 2010 12:58 AM
Jim Brown wouldnt do shit in todays nfl. He got by back in the day because he was just as big as the lineman. He would be another Ron Dayne in todays game.
Jan 2, 2010 12:58am
D

DaBrowns41

Senior Member

1,304 posts
Jan 2, 2010 1:07 AM
NNN wrote: Then take it up with the guys who selected the team to begin with (HOFers, NFL executives, ex-players, and historians). They said the only real hand-wringing was whether or not John Mackey should have made it on.
Damn. I thought you actually made that yourself. That's disappointing.

I guess we can stop discussing it then.
Jan 2, 2010 1:07am
NNN's avatar

NNN

Senior Member

902 posts
Jan 2, 2010 2:07 AM
Al Capone wrote: Jim Brown wouldnt do shit in todays nfl. He got by back in the day because he was just as big as the lineman. He would be another Ron Dayne in todays game.
Three things.

1) No one seems to knock Eddie George on that basis (since he was massive compared to the rest of the running backs in the league and defensive personnel)

2) EVERY NFL player from the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s admits that weights, particularly for linemen, were exaggerated downward to a great extent. Gino Marchetti, for example, listed around 240 for his entire career, then admitted after his playing days ended that he'd never been below somewhere in the 270s.

3) If Jim Brown played today, he would have access to modern medicine, modern nutrition, and modern strength training. So would every player from days gone by. On the other hand, putting a modern player in the game of the late 50s would mean they'd also have spent their high school AND college careers playing both sides of the ball. Switching sides at the NFL level was substantially more common then than it is now; if a modern running back couldn't hack it back then, he'd be gone completely unless he could play linebacker.
Jan 2, 2010 2:07am
D

DaBrowns41

Senior Member

1,304 posts
Jan 2, 2010 2:08 AM
NNN wrote:
Al Capone wrote: Jim Brown wouldnt do shit in todays nfl. He got by back in the day because he was just as big as the lineman. He would be another Ron Dayne in todays game.
Three things.

1) No one seems to knock Eddie George on that basis (since he was massive compared to the rest of the running backs in the league and defensive personnel)

2) EVERY NFL player from the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s admits that weights, particularly for linemen, were exaggerated downward to a great extent. Gino Marchetti, for example, listed around 240 for his entire career, then admitted after his playing days ended that he'd never been below somewhere in the 270s.

3) If Jim Brown played today, he would have access to modern medicine, modern nutrition, and modern strength training. So would every player from days gone by. On the other hand, putting a modern player in the game of the late 50s would mean they'd also have spent their high school AND college careers playing both sides of the ball. Switching sides at the NFL level was substantially more common then than it is now; if a modern running back couldn't hack it back then, he'd be gone completely unless he could play linebacker.
Excellent post.
Jan 2, 2010 2:08am
NNN's avatar

NNN

Senior Member

902 posts
Jan 2, 2010 2:11 AM
DaBrowns41 wrote:
NNN wrote: Then take it up with the guys who selected the team to begin with (HOFers, NFL executives, ex-players, and historians). They said the only real hand-wringing was whether or not John Mackey should have made it on.
Damn. I thought you actually made that yourself. That's disappointing.

I guess we can stop discussing it then.
My only real issue with the team had to do with Reggie White over Bruce Smith (but then, how many people would make that switch?).

I'd also like to do a fairly intensive study into exactly how good Dick Butkus actually was. With Deacon Jones and Night Train Lane, both of whom have very similar stories from opposing players about how loudmouthed and intimidating they were, we can see a great deal of production and a great deal of plays being made that go beyond "normal". Butkus....if you strip away the stories and focus entirely on the play, doesn't seem to compare. I guess that's another project to tack onto the end of the current list.
Jan 2, 2010 2:11am
D

DaBrowns41

Senior Member

1,304 posts
Jan 2, 2010 2:40 AM
NNN wrote:
DaBrowns41 wrote:
NNN wrote: Then take it up with the guys who selected the team to begin with (HOFers, NFL executives, ex-players, and historians). They said the only real hand-wringing was whether or not John Mackey should have made it on.
Damn. I thought you actually made that yourself. That's disappointing.

I guess we can stop discussing it then.
My only real issue with the team had to do with Reggie White over Bruce Smith (but then, how many people would make that switch?).

I'd also like to do a fairly intensive study into exactly how good Dick Butkus actually was. With Deacon Jones and Night Train Lane, both of whom have very similar stories from opposing players about how loudmouthed and intimidating they were, we can see a great deal of production and a great deal of plays being made that go beyond "normal". Butkus....if you strip away the stories and focus entirely on the play, doesn't seem to compare. I guess that's another project to tack onto the end of the current list.
I think that White and Smith can be interchangeable. Both were amazing talents in the NFL. I think I'd personally give the nod to Bruce, as he was the biggest part of a Bills defense that was dominant in the 90's, but you can't say that White's time with Philly, and more notably with Green Bay doesn't have a good argument.

I'm curious about your study about Butkus. If you remember, when you're done with it, do you mind posting it on here, or PMing it to me?
Jan 2, 2010 2:40am
NNN's avatar

NNN

Senior Member

902 posts
Jan 2, 2010 3:16 PM
DaBrowns41 wrote: I think that White and Smith can be interchangeable. Both were amazing talents in the NFL. I think I'd personally give the nod to Bruce, as he was the biggest part of a Bills defense that was dominant in the 90's, but you can't say that White's time with Philly, and more notably with Green Bay doesn't have a good argument.

I'm curious about your study about Butkus. If you remember, when you're done with it, do you mind posting it on here, or PMing it to me?
What pushes it toward Smith and not White is that the great majority of Smith's career was spent in a 3-4 defense, where the DE is designed to anchor the perimeter rather than make the plays. White was in a 4-3 for most of his career.
Jan 2, 2010 3:16pm
D

DaBrowns41

Senior Member

1,304 posts
Jan 3, 2010 6:54 AM
NNN wrote:
DaBrowns41 wrote: I think that White and Smith can be interchangeable. Both were amazing talents in the NFL. I think I'd personally give the nod to Bruce, as he was the biggest part of a Bills defense that was dominant in the 90's, but you can't say that White's time with Philly, and more notably with Green Bay doesn't have a good argument.

I'm curious about your study about Butkus. If you remember, when you're done with it, do you mind posting it on here, or PMing it to me?
What pushes it toward Smith and not White is that the great majority of Smith's career was spent in a 3-4 defense, where the DE is designed to anchor the perimeter rather than make the plays. White was in a 4-3 for most of his career.
And not many people realize that.

In a 34, the DE's aren't supposed to be play makers. Do we want them to get to the QB, of course, but their job is to play well in space, stuff the run, and take up blockers to allow the LB's to make the play. Smith was a play maker and sack master, despite being a guy who demanded a double team, which was just another reason why those defenses were dominant.
Jan 3, 2010 6:54am
KnightRyder's avatar

KnightRyder

Senior Member

1,428 posts
Jan 3, 2010 12:21 PM
Sonofanump wrote: How many teams? If I had a top 4 pick, I would go QB. I am sure you could come up with a lot more premier running backs.

Young- Let's find him a helmet that prevents concussions
Manning
Elway
Marino

Next five maybe late in the first round
Unitas
Moon
Favre
Warner
Kelly

The middle of the road guys
Tarkenton
Staubach
Fouts
Brady
Mcnabb
Starr
Theisman
Dawson
Aikman
Simms
those guys are all good, but i find it odd that terry bradshaw is no where on that list
Jan 3, 2010 12:21pm
B

BCSbunk

Senior Member

972 posts
Jan 3, 2010 1:15 PM
Sonofanump wrote:
BCSbunk wrote: I would draft John Hannah with my first selection.
If picking later in the first round I would look at Jim Parker, Tony Munoz or Orlando Pace.
It came down to either Munoz or Hannah for me. Not a easy decision for the first pick in an all time NFL draft.
Jan 3, 2010 1:15pm
S

Sonofanump

Jan 3, 2010 4:35 PM
KnightRyder wrote:
Sonofanump wrote: How many teams? If I had a top 4 pick, I would go QB. I am sure you could come up with a lot more premier running backs.

Young- Let's find him a helmet that prevents concussions
Manning
Elway
Marino

Next five maybe late in the first round
Unitas
Moon
Favre
Warner
Kelly

The middle of the road guys
Tarkenton
Staubach
Fouts
Brady
Mcnabb
Starr
Theisman
Dawson
Aikman
Simms
those guys are all good, but i find it odd that terry bradshaw is no where on that list
I'll draft on who has best ability not who had the best supporting cast?
Jan 3, 2010 4:35pm
NNN's avatar

NNN

Senior Member

902 posts
Jan 3, 2010 10:19 PM
Sonofanump wrote: I'll draft on who has best ability not who had the best supporting cast?
Bradshaw would be there far ahead of Aikman and especially Theismann, so your comment is intriguing.

You also failed to list any of the pre-1955 QBs, who certainly had to have a great deal of overall ability. Consider that Benny Friedman, Sammy Baugh, Arnie Herber, and Cecil Isbell all played with a ball that looked more like a watermelon than a football. All also had to play both sides of the ball, as did Sid Luckman and (in the AAFC) Otto Graham.
Jan 3, 2010 10:19pm