Reggie White & Peyton Manning: 7th & 8th on "NFL’s Greatest 100 Players of All Time"

[ManningBerry#1]

Lewis is #18, Marino #25, and Matthews #78.

No Brian Urlacher is the head scratcher. I can't remember a player being so unappreciated by fans and analysts. Class guy, born leader, brought a skillet to the LB position I'm not sure we've ever seen.

Skillet? Is that how he tackled people by hitting them over the head with a skillet like and old lady?

And btw I know it was autocorrect lol

 

[TOP]

Sorry folks, but Jerry Rice as THE BEST to have ever put the uniform on in the NFL is a JOKE--he may have been in the top 2 or 3 best receivers, but he doesn't even belong in the top 10 on that list!

Just makes the list suspect....I love Reggie, but the fact that Joe Greene (even though I HATED the Steelers) is not even in the top 10 is laughable....

You serious? I thought it was the consensus that he's the greatest ever.

It looks as though there are only 21 players to ever score 100 touchdowns.

Only 5 players to score over 150 touchdowns. 156, 157, 162, 175 and 208(Rice).

That leaves one guy to score more than 200 touchdowns with 99.99999% of the players to pass through the NFL never coming close. In fact, Emmitt Smith isn't even that close and he's a running back! Running backs are given more opportunities to score and Rice as a receiver blew away the all-time rushing leader/scorer. 33 more touchdowns... 33 touchdowns is 18.9% of Smith's scoring out put. That's how far ahead Rice is of the second closest guy.

If there's a list with just 1 guy on it, that's amazing. To top it off, there are only 2 guys within 50 touchdowns when only 21 players have even gotten to 100... that's domination. Nobody is even in his his class.

Oh and as far as receiving yardage goes.... only 4 have broken 15,000 with 15,209, 15,292 15,934 and 22,895. I bet you can figure out which one Rice is. 7,000 more yards than the next closest guy is almost half their output.

 

[keckjm]

Kurt Warner at 90 is pretty amazing too. Can you imagine going from a QB in the arena football league to being a Super Bowl QB and rated the 90th best player in NFL history? Talk about a inspiration for young kids he's it.

 

[Boca Vol]

Kurt Warner at 90 is pretty amazing too. Can you imagine going from a QB in the arena football league to being a Super Bowl QB and rated the 90th best player in NFL history? Talk about a inspiration for young kids he's it.

In before Butch Jones gets "it" reference.

 

[TOP]

Kurt Warner at 90 is pretty amazing too. Can you imagine going from a QB in the arena football league to being a Super Bowl QB and rated the 90th best player in NFL history? Talk about a inspiration for young kids he's it.

If it didn't take him so long to get to the NFL, he'd be higher. What he did in a short period of time was pretty epic. Greatest show on turf until the Patriots a few years ago.

 

[keckjm]

You serious? I thought it was the consensus that he's the greatest ever.

It looks as though there are only 21 players to ever score 100 touchdowns.

Only 5 players to score over 150 touchdowns. 156, 157, 162, 175 and 208 touchdowns.

That leaves one guy to score more than 200 touchdowns with 99.99999% of the players in the NFL to never come close. In fact, Emmitt Smith isn't even that close and he's a running back! Running backs are given more opportunities to score and Rice as a receiver blew away the all-time rushing leader/scorer. 33 more touchdowns... 33 touchdowns is 18.9% of Smith's scoring out put. That's how far ahead Rice is of the second closest guy.

When you make up a list of 1 to do something and there are only 2 guys within 50 touchdowns when only 21 players have even gotten to 100... that's domination. Nobody is even in his his class for what he did.

Oh and as far as receiving yardage goes.... only 4 have broken 15,000 with 15,209, 15,292 15,934 and 22,895. I bet you can figure out which one Rice is. 7,000 more yards than the next closest guy is almost half their output.

Stamped, signed, and delivered.

 

[tennrich1]

Good point...the reason I said that about jim brown was because he played aginst mostly slow white guys. Put him in todays game and I don't think he does any better than what eddie george done. However...could u imagine what barry sanders would have done if he could go back in time to j browns erra??...he would probably STILL hold an unbroken rushing record imo!!

The "slow white guy" comment really doesnt hold water. The facts are some of those "slow white guys" were some of the greatest to ever play the game...I do understand the speed issue but great athletes in any era compensate for lack of speed with other intangibles and its almost impossible to compare the two eras...Jim Brown was awesome then AND would be awesome today....

 

[Daloth]

People forget... these "Old schoolers" wouldn't be the way they are with our modern medicine and training. They had to be tough as hell because they WEREN'T as fast or strong as the guys are today.

and comparing an entire generation to another isn't really fair. One grew up either in the great depression or the baby boom, and the other in generation x or even some in the millennials.

 

[keckjm]

If it didn't take him so long to get to the NFL, he'd be higher. What he did in a short period of time was pretty epic. Greatest show on turf until the Patriots a few years ago.

Saw an interview with Warner the other day on NFL network and he stated that playing in the AFL was the best gift given to him because it made the NFL game so much slower when he got to the league. I can't imagine NFL teams going out and picking up the best AFL QB every year, but it does bring up food for thought for a team needing a cheap 3rd string QB.

 

[MikeVol44]

You serious? I thought it was the consensus that he's the greatest ever.

It looks as though there are only 21 players to ever score 100 touchdowns.

Only 5 players to score over 150 touchdowns. 156, 157, 162, 175 and 208(Rice).

That leaves one guy to score more than 200 touchdowns with 99.99999% of the players to pass through the NFL never coming close. In fact, Emmitt Smith isn't even that close and he's a running back! Running backs are given more opportunities to score and Rice as a receiver blew away the all-time rushing leader/scorer. 33 more touchdowns... 33 touchdowns is 18.9% of Smith's scoring out put. That's how far ahead Rice is of the second closest guy.

If there's a list with just 1 guy on it, that's amazing. To top it off, there are only 2 guys within 50 touchdowns when only 21 players have even gotten to 100... that's domination. Nobody is even in his his class.

Oh and as far as receiving yardage goes.... only 4 have broken 15,000 with 15,209, 15,292 15,934 and 22,895. I bet you can figure out which one Rice is. 7,000 more yards than the next closest guy is almost half their output.

Uh....the list was for the NFL's greatest 100 players--not those who have scored more TDs or earned more yards receiving.

But, you are correct and it's not even close--Jerry Rice scored more TDs and gained more yards receiving than anyone who has ever played the game--

BUT--is that THE ONLY criteria used for evaluating the performance of a football player? It's obvious from your comments that you say yes. I, however, disagree entirely.

Let me ask the question another way--If you had to build an NFL team from scratch and had the very first pick of ANY player to have ever played the game--Who would you choose?

I say that Jerry Rice wouldn't even make my top 10. IN fact, I would pick Joe Greene, John Hannah, PM, Tom Brady, Walter Payton, Reggie White, etc..etc... ahead of Jerry Rice. Who would you pick? :salute:

Note: Just how have teams performed who have taken a WR 1st in the draft over the years???

In fact, only 4 players listed as WRs have EVER been drafted first--the point being that those who know HOW to gauge talent and stake their livelihood on this decision almost NEVER consider WR the most valuable position. Now--just why is that?

 

[MikeVol44]

Stamped, signed, and delivered.

and lost in the mail......:crazy:

 

[TOP]

Uh....the list was for the NFL's greatest 100 players--not those who have scored more TDs or earned more yards receiving.

But, you are correct and it's not even close--Jerry Rice scored more TDs and gained more yards receiving than anyone who has ever played the game--

BUT--is that THE ONLY criteria used for evaluating the performance of a football player? It's obvious from your comments that you say yes. I, however, disagree entirely.

Let me ask the question another way--If you had to build an NFL team from scratch and had the very first pick of ANY player to have ever played the game--Who would you choose?

I say that Jerry Rice wouldn't even make my top 10. IN fact, I would pick Joe Greene, John Hannah, PM, Tom Brady, Walter Payton, Reggie White, etc..etc... ahead of Jerry Rice. Who would you pick? :salute:

He not only won multiple super bowls but won with the two different quarterbacks. It's not just stats that make him great. If you want to go by who you'd build your team around, that's fine. Going by that list, it's clear that stats and championships are what made that list.

We're not just talking about him being slightly ahead statistically... we're talking about untouchable. This guy's numbers are on another planet compared to everyone else. Someone compared Don Huston to Babe Ruth. I think it would be fitting to compare Rice to Babe Ruth. Jerry Rice is the Babe Ruth of football.

You might not build your team around a wide receiver but it stills stands that he's the greatest player to ever grace the field. You could call the guy an artist if you wanted to. Adding to his greatness... if there was one player out there that I'd say never took steroids, it's probably him. He didn't look like someone who took steroids and he certainly didn't talk like someone who took them. He seemed like a healthy guy who would be opposed to destroying his body.

I'll also say that the top 5 they have is probably who I'd have. I would say Rice then Montana/LT and then Brown/Payton. Personally, I'm more of a Payton guy even though I hate the Bears. I just like watching him run.

 

[TOP]

I say that Jerry Rice wouldn't even make my top 10. IN fact, I would pick Joe Greene, John Hannah, PM, Tom Brady, Walter Payton, Reggie White, etc..etc... ahead of Jerry Rice. Who would you pick? :salute:

Note: Just how have teams performed who have taken a WR 1st in the draft over the years???

In fact, only 4 players listed as WRs have EVER been drafted first--the point being that those who know HOW to gauge talent and stake their livelihood on this decision almost NEVER consider WR the most valuable position. Now--just why is that?

Of course you'd build a team with a QB over a WR.

We're talking about what he accomplished on the field... what he accomplished makes him the greatest player ever.

You're talking about importance. The list is about greatest. There is no greater player than Jerry Rice.

 

[MikeVol44]

You're talking about importance....

SO ARE YOU!! You consider the MOST IMPORTANT CRITERIA for evaluating GREATNESS on the football field to be # of TDs and # of receiving yards...but you also eliminate those athletes who might have been better players but who's career was cut short by injuries--guys like Gale Sayers and Bo Jackson to name just two.

I'm just trying to point out that the evaluation of the "Greatest" is a subjective and NOT an objective measure; i.e., it is a matter of personal opinion at BEST. Your opinion is just your opinion and is not the absolute truth nor even an objective measure of evidence for Rice being the Greatest Football Player of all time...

I certainly believe that Rice is one of the best and hardest working athletes to ever have played the position of WR in the NFL. However, I do not think that the number of TDs scored and the amount of yards accumulated by a WR makes him the GREATEST football player who has ever lived! And, I've offered OBJECTVIVE EVIDENCE to demonstrate that the WR position is not even considered THE MOST IMPORTANT position on the field of play within the NFL.

Why is a WR considered more important than the QB who has thrown the most TDs and for more yardage than any other QB? And what about RBs?? Why is the RB with the most TDs and total yards rushing not considered the GREATEST?

And by the way--you might back off on some statements made about Rice's numbers being untouchable. Tony Gonzalez--if he comes back in 2013--will probably catch Rice in numbers of receptions--being less than 60 catches away--and that is for a TE!

And, what about the defensive side of the ball? Why do we not consider the defensive player with the most tackles who has ever played, or the Defensive player with the most sacks, forced fumbles, interceptions, etc...etc....?

Shouldn't the GREATEST player who has ever lived to this point be chosen from the POSITION which is considered the most important on the field? :salute:

 

[235lbVol]

Sorry but im not on Rice being #1 . Id put LT or Reggie best ever before him. I dont think Rices records will be touched, but I the guys like Megatron, AJ.Green are mch better pure wrs. Rice had two halloffame QBs his career plus played under Bill Walsh in the west coast offense when it was new and teams couldn't defend it. And yes, Deion and Brady need to be top 10.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Excellent, excellent points, guys. I am struck, first and foremost, by the fact that there has been virtually no discussion of the fact that two of our greatest made the NFL's top 8 all-time. I, too, am struck by the fact that Doug Atkins did not make the list. Particularly during the first half of his NFL career (1950s), he was an absolute "freak of nature" in terms of size and strength, and an utterly dominating force on the defensive line.

As for the "old, white guys" argument, I would like to raise two points for further discussion. First of all, these guys played in an era when most coaches were adamantly opposed to regimented strength training, based on the archaic premise that it would make them "musclebound." Second, there is no question that the overall trajectory in athletic performance has been in the direction of bigger, faster, and stronger athletes. The one timeless measure of greatness is not how such and such player would fare against today's competition but, rather, to what extent did he surpass the accomplishments of his peers.

For those of you who would argue for Barry Sanders or Walter Payton over Jim Brown, I would grant that your position is thoroughly defensible, but how many of you actually saw Jim Brown play? His achievements towered over those of his peers to a far greater extent than any running back who has succeeded him. Brown led the NFL in rushing eight of his nine seasons, he was the first 1,500 yd. rusher (in 12 games, 1958), the first 1,800 yd. rusher (in 14 games, 1963) and he eclipsed 1,400 yds. in five of his nine seasons, all without ever having the benefit of playing in a 16-game schedule.

 

[#1DicksonVolFan]

The bottom line is that sports, just like everything else, has evolved rapidly over the course of the 20th century and into today. Players are simply bigger, faster, and stronger than they once were. This whole argument that if the old timers had access to the same "advantages" that modern athletes are afforded, they would be just as good if not better than today's athletes is BS. They could have the best strength and conditioning program and diet in the world, but they would still be small. The fact that this country now has over 300 million people means that freakish athletes are a lot more common. Sure, you had people like Bo Jackson, but that was very rare.

 

[MikeVol44]

Excellent, excellent points, guys. I am struck, first and foremost, by the fact that there has been virtually no discussion of the fact that two of our greatest made the NFL's top 8 all-time. I, too, am struck by the fact that Doug Atkins did not make the list. Particularly during the first half of his NFL career (1950s), he was an absolute "freak of nature" in terms of size and strength, and an utterly dominating force on the defensive line.

As for the "old, white guys" argument, I would like to raise two points for further discussion. First of all, these guys played in an era when most coaches were adamantly opposed to regimented strength training, based on the archaic premise that it would make them "musclebound." Second, there is no question that the overall trajectory in athletic performance has been in the direction of bigger, faster, and stronger athletes. The one timeless measure of greatness is not how such and such player would fare against today's competition but, rather, to what extent did he surpass the accomplishments of his peers.

For those of you who would argue for Barry Sanders or Walter Payton over Jim Brown, I would grant that your position is thoroughly defensible, but how many of you actually saw Jim Brown play? His achievements towered over those of his peers to a far greater extent than any running back who has succeeded him. Brown led the NFL in rushing eight of his nine seasons, he was the first 1,500 yd. rusher (in 12 games, 1958), the first 1,800 yd. rusher (in 14 games, 1963) and he eclipsed 1,400 yds. in five of his nine seasons, all without ever having the benefit of playing in a 16-game schedule.

Amen on Doug Atkins! He was the first person I looked for on the list--and was extremely disappointed that he didn't make it. I think he was better than Reggie and could have played and been All-Pro today with no problem--He simply was a BEAST.

I never liked Bruce Smith--but he definitely DOESN'T belong so far down that list of GREATEST players! He was a beast and deserves to be at least in the top 20.

I didn't say anything about Peyton because I think that both Montana and Brady were/are better QBs than him in the NFL. I didn't say smarter, but I did say better. And I expect to get hammered for saying it, but you can't ignore that Brady produces at the highest level year in and year out with leftovers at the skill positions--except for TE over the last couple of years.

No doubt that Jim Brown was a man among boys...and he could've played at least 5 more years when he quit. It's personal for me and I've never liked him--but Brown did take plays off from time to time--Walter NEVER did! NO LB ever wanted to see Payton fill that hole when they were coming on a blitz!

I'm a Payton guy all the way--and don't even talk to me about Emmitt Smith! :salute:

 

[Vol$4Life]

Although it was first aired, I believe, in 2010, I have been watching replays of the NFL Network 10-part series, "NFL’s Greatest 100 Players List of All Time." I don't know who precisely was involved in the selection process, although they describe it as a "blue-ribbon panel." In any event, I decided to see where Reggie White and Peyton were ranked and they were selected 7th and 8th, respectively. Here is their Top Ten:

1. Jerry Rice
2. Jim Brown
3. Lawrence Taylor
4. Joe Montana
5. Walter Payton
6. Johnny Unitas
7. Reggie White
8. Peyton Manning
9. Don Hutson
10. Dick Butkus

As you can see, Reggie was the highest rated defensive lineman of all time and the only quarterbacks listed ahead of Peyton are Joe Montana and Johnny Unitas. For the sake of comparison, Brett Favre was ranked 20th and Tom Brady came in 21st.

For the full list, see NFL Top 100 - NFL's Greatest 100 Players List of All Time.

Peyton fans should find this useful information for those inevitable Manning-Brady debates.

Peyton is better than Johnny u sorry and Montana give me the best defense in the nfl a hall of fame te and the best wr of all time I could win a ring. I think a lot of qbs would have won champions on those niner teams

 

[Volosaurus rex]

With today's strength and conditioning programs, not to mention supplementation protocols for building muscle mass, Atkins would have possessed the physique of a grizzly bear, one probably more on the order of 6-8, 320 lbs. than the 270 lbs. at which he dominated the league in his day.

 

[MikeVol44]

The bottom line is that sports, just like everything else, has evolved rapidly over the course of the 20th century and into today. Players are simply bigger, faster, and stronger than they once were. This whole argument that if the old timers had access to the same "advantages" that modern athletes are afforded, they would be just as good if not better than today's athletes is BS. They could have the best strength and conditioning program and diet in the world, but they would still be small. The fact that this country now has over 300 million people means that freakish athletes are a lot more common. Sure, you had people like Bo Jackson, but that was very rare.

Excuse me sir, but if you really believe that Doug Atkins at 6'8" and 275 lbs couldn't line up and be an all-pro in today's NFL---more power to you.

Same for Rosie Grier, Deacon Jones, Bobby Bell, Willie Lanier, Dick Butkus, Jim Thorpe, Bronco Nagurski, Sammy Baugh, Ted Hendricks, Jack Tatum, Earl Campbell, Gale Sayers, Roger Staubach, Dan Fouts, Y.A. Tittle, Otto Graham, etc...etc... You get the point! :salute:

 

[D-rock]

I know right... I always love some of the old timers they put on these list. That guy would be lucky to make a roster in today's game.

Go look at SLAM magazine's 500 greatest NBA players of all time and see some of the goofy ass white guys from the 50s and 60s they claim are better than Lebron James.

Racist comment. If they are white there is no way they were good at basketball. Right?

If you want to complain about them being on the list that is one thing. But to call them out for being "white" and then making insulting remarks about them only makes you look like you have a chip on your shoulder. It might be a boulder....

 

[crusse10]

I remember when the list came out that they said something about the way the poll was conducted. The voters were asked how that person was at their position, but those findings were then arranged to show them across all players. I think Rice is the best WR ever, but not the best player ever.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

In the same sense, there are a lot of today's players who wouldn't even make a roster of an NFL team back then. Let's say you list the 100 greatest defensive players of an era. In the 1960's, there were 13 teams, which would mean each team would average out to have 8 or 9 of the top 100 D players on their team. Today, with 32 teams, each team would average out to have 3-4 of the greatest on their team. That alone should tell you comparatively, team defenses would be tougher in the 1960's because the best players weren't scattered about as much. And as for Don Hutson's credentials, his last 6 years with the Packers, he also played safety and had 30 interceptions. It's hard to compare one era to another because of diet, training, better equipment, etc. You can say the old guys couldn't play today, but in the same argument, if you take away all the benefits time has added for players and moved them back to the old days, would they have been as good as they were?

You make an interesting point. If you look at the Steelers' dynasty from the 1970s, I don't believe you will find any team in history that had more Hall of Fame players on both sides of the line of scrimmage at one time than Bradshaw and company. Terry was a fine quarterback but it makes the achievement of leading that team to four Super Bowl victories pale somewhat in that context. I don't know, however, where the balance lies between the "dilution of talent" argument and the almost exponential population growth we have witnessed subsequently.

 

[#1DicksonVolFan]

Excuse me sir, but if you really believe that Doug Atkins at 6'8" and 275 lbs couldn't line up and be an all-pro in today's NFL---more power to you.

Same for Rosie Grier, Deacon Jones, Bobby Bell, Willie Lanier, Dick Butkus, Jim Thorpe, Bronco Nagurski, Sammy Baugh, Ted Hendricks, Jack Tatum, Earl Campbell, Gale Sayers, Roger Staubach, Dan Fouts, Y.A. Tittle, Otto Graham, etc...etc... You get the point! :salute:

Fouts and Staubach would be good back-ups today I suppose.