That list is some serious bullshit. So many things about it suck.
Speaking of suck, they really deep throated the Baltimore Ravens. Don't get me wrong they have tons of top end talent but Ed Reed is not a top 20 guy anymore and Flacco being up there is questionable. I'd honestly rather face him than Romo. Can't believe I jus admitted that
I'm fine with Calvin being ahead of Brady because he is def a top 3 talent in the NFL and dominates his position.
Of course, London Fletcher gets shafted. Leading NFL tackler, textbook hammer dropping hitter, leader and operating brain of good defense and he gets put behind Pouncey who anchors a (last year) suspect line & Earl Thomas who has much to prove and build on.
Not so sure Steve Smith is a top 35 player any longer if you include all phases of the game. Cam revitalized his career but he's gonna fall off more and more.
The only purpose lists like this serve is it's something for the talking heads at NFLN or ESPN, etc to have something to talk about during the offseason. Did you notice that this NFLN Top 100 list didn't come around til last year, after the yearly Favre-offseason-watch?
I stopped watching when I saw Tebow at #95. I saw the complete list when they scrolled it at the bottom of the screen and it only served to reiterate that it's a piece of shit. With all the Ravens defensive players they had so high, you'd think they had one of the greatest defenses of all-time, but they didn't even have the top defense of the past season.
And as bad as the players list is, I took a peak at the fans list, and the less said about it the better.
I have a lot of disagreements with the list. I felt like last season's list was much better but then again these are just the players' opinion.
I want to point out a few though that I have a problem with.
-I feel like Romo should be way higher and I'm far from a Cowboys fan. He is just a immensely underrated. Like 5 of the QBs listed above him should not be listed above him.
-Nicks should be above Cruz. I have no clue how Cruz somehow got listed above Nicks when Nicks is clearly the best WR on the team.
-Arian Foster, top 25? No way. He is a good back and a versatile back but he is certainly not top 25. Among RBs of the top 100, I'm pretty sure that is top 5 which he isn't. Top 10, yes, top 5, no.
-Arian Foster, top 25? No way. He is a good back and a versatile back but he is certainly not top 25. Among RBs of the top 100, I'm pretty sure that is top 5 which he isn't. Top 10, yes, top 5, no.
Explain. You're right, he isn't top 5, he's top 3. You do know he's been the most productive back in the last 2 years right?
Explain. You're right, he isn't top 5, he's top 3. You do know he's been the most productive back in the last 2 years right?
I also know he plays on by far the best offensive line in the game.
I see no difference between Arian Foster and Matt Forte except Forte is better than Foster at everything from skills to athleticism. Forte plays on some garbage offensive line and is still one of the most productive RBs in the game.
Foster is a top 10 RB, possibly in the 6-8 range but not top 5.
I had my doubts about Foster during his breakout year, but he's a great player. There is no doubt he is a top 5 running back, that's not even a debate, IMO.
I had my doubts about Foster during his breakout year, but he's a great player. There is no doubt he is a top 5 running back, that's not even a debate, IMO.
He was listed as a #5 RB among the top 100 list behind Peterson, McCoy, Rice, and MJD.
Gore, Forte, and Jackson headline #6-8. You really think Forte, Gore, and Jackson have no debate over Foster as the #5 RB? Really?
Top 100 Players voted on by the players...
