rv581 Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 This is from the www.laststory.com website, in the top 10 section. Top Ten NFL Running Backs 10) John Riggins 9) O.J. Simpson 8) Gayle Sayers 7) Eric Dickerson 6) Marshall Faulk 5) Marcus Allen 4) Barry Sanders 3) Jim Brown 2) Emmitt Smith 1) Walter Payton (Honorable mention: Earl Campbell, Larry Csonka, Tony Dorsett, Franco Harris, Hugh McElhenny) ____________ Top Ten NFL Defensive Backs 10) Jimmy Johnson 9) Mike Haynes 8) Larry Wilson 7) Darrell Green 6) Emien Tunnell 5) Rod Woodson 4) Mel Blount 3) Deion Sanders 2) Dick “Night Train” Lane 1) Ronnie Lott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SB33 Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Who wrote this junk. Anyone that puts Jim Brown 3rd as a running back loses creditability. This is not usefull, unless used to spark an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 I'm as big a Payton fan as there is, but I'd put Brown on top of that list as well. Just look at what he did and the time he did it in. Unbelievable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Brown the Payton then Smith. By the way, take Deion off that list. 2 years ago he said to the Camera's that Baseball was his 1st love and football was a far 2nd. He's not allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rv581 Posted January 2, 2003 Author Share Posted January 2, 2003 The trouble with these things is that, how do you define "the best"? By pure ability? If so, Deion maybe should be #1, Gale Sayers #1. Do you go by production? Than Emmit #1, whoever is alltime interception leader #1. Do you reward someone for how good they were in their prime? Or how good they were in the whole of their career? Going by someone's prime, it's hard to argue against OJ Simpson going 2003 yards, 6 yards a carry. Emmit, Brown, and Payton never matched that. But as far as having the best career w/o a dropoff, Jim Brown is the best. Still, it makes good fodder for debate and discussions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Also, I hate when they include Safeties in the DB list. CB and safety are different positions. And if you ARE going to include safeties, where's Ken Houston? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Originally posted by Henry And if you ARE going to include safeties, where's Ken Houston? No Kidding!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Definition of a Safety in the NFL --- Fast linebackers in college (or highschool) who were too small to play LB in the NFL (or college sometimes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dickens Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Jerry Rice said Darrell Green was the best cornerback he ever played against. How dare they rank Deion ahead of Darrell. This is typical though. Most people think Deion is the best because he did such a great job of hyping and marketing himself. Maybe if Darrell was more of an *** and avoided tackles like Deion he'd rank higher on people's corner lists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Because there's no objective way to precisely rank these guys, the fact that Darrell's on the list is where my analysis stops. And he does belong in the top ten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rv581 Posted January 2, 2003 Author Share Posted January 2, 2003 Originally posted by Dickens Jerry Rice said Darrell Green was the best cornerback he ever played against. How dare they rank Deion ahead of Darrell. This is typical though. Most people think Deion is the best because he did such a great job of hyping and marketing himself. Maybe if Darrell was more of an *** and avoided tackles like Deion he'd rank higher on people's corner lists. B/c we like Green and dislike Deion, there's some revisionist history going on here. Both will be enshrined in the Hall of Fame, but Deion in his prime was MUCH better than Darrell was in his prime. Deion in his prime could cover practically anyone all by himself w/o any help, single handedly took away half the field, and was named the NFC's most valuable defensive player. Green in his prime was one of the top two or three corners in the NFL, but struggled mightily against bigger WRs. He never matched up well with, say, Michael Irvin. Who was the better MAN? No question-- Green wins big. Who was the better teammate? No question either-- Green. But who was the better football player? In their comparative primes, Green simply wasn't on Deion's level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eparadox Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Yeah, Deion was better, and I'd take him over Darrell in his prime, but if you gave me the option to pick them both up out of college, knowing that Darrell would have a career twice as long as Deion's, then I'd take Darrell, no question. The Redskins cornerback crew has been consistent and near the top of the NFL for the past 20 years, mostly in part because of Darrell's excellent play over the past 15 of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Originally posted by rv581 B/c we like Green and dislike Deion, there's some revisionist history going on here. Both will be enshrined in the Hall of Fame, but Deion in his prime was MUCH better than Darrell was in his prime. Deion in his prime could cover practically anyone all by himself w/o any help, single handedly took away half the field, and was named the NFC's most valuable defensive player. Green in his prime was one of the top two or three corners in the NFL, but struggled mightily against bigger WRs. He never matched up well with, say, Michael Irvin. Who was the better MAN? No question-- Green wins big. Who was the better teammate? No question either-- Green. But who was the better football player? In their comparative primes, Green simply wasn't on Deion's level. rv my brother, I swear I'm not trying to pick on you, but I totally disagree. This discussion has been raging for the past few days now. Here's a good thread that covers it: http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20100&perpage=15&display=&highlight=Deion&pagenumber=4 I'll say one last time, anyone who uses Irvin as an example isn't talking about Darrell in his prime. Darrell was well into his 30s when he was covering Irvin. About the same time in Deion's career Deion was nursing a swollen toe, backing up Champ Bailey and then quitting when the going got tough. Look at Darrell's battles with guys like Harold Charmichael if you must compare these two in there respective primes. Darrell in the 80s was known as THE guy who could take away half the field. Petibone used to brag about it all the time. Sure, by the time Darrell was Deion's retirement age (Around Dallas' first superbowl year) there were one or two WRs who could, on a good day, occassionally get the better of Darrell. But that proves nothing in the Deion/Darrell debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 I don't think you can justifiably say that Deion was better than Darrell in his prime. Darrell was every bit the feared CB that Deion was and did all the things Deion did in shutting down a side of the field or the opponent's #1 WR. (He also did it, BTW, at 5'8" rather than at 6' like Deion.) He was also every bit the punt returner that Deion was, however the Redskins opted not to use him that way for as much of his career, which is where his longevity came from. Both were all time greats and very good in their primes. Leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rv581 Posted January 2, 2003 Author Share Posted January 2, 2003 Originally posted by Henry rv my brother, I swear I'm not trying to pick on you, but I totally disagree. This discussion has been raging for the past few days now. Here's a good thread that covers it: http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20100&perpage=15&display=&highlight=Deion&pagenumber=4 I'll say one last time, anyone who uses Irvin as an example isn't talking about Darrell in his prime. Darrell was well into his 30s when he was covering Irvin. About the same time in Deion's career Deion was nursing a swollen toe, backing up Champ Bailey and then quitting when the going got tough. Look at Darrell's battles with guys like Harold Charmichael if you must compare these two in there respective primes. Darrell in the 80s was known as THE guy who could take away half the field. Petibone used to brag about it all the time. Sure, by the time Darrell was Deion's retirement age (Around Dallas' first superbowl year) there were one or two WRs who could, on a good day, occassionally get the better of Darrell. But that proves nothing in the Deion/Darrell debate. It's OK-- reasonable people can disagree. So can UNreasonable people. :laugh: I think an argument can be made that Darrell Green was a more valuable teammate and more valuable to his franchise. I think it should also be pointed out that Green, in his prime, would play a full season. Deion, in his prime, would spend 4 or 5 games batting .200 in the majors. But when they were both on the field, in their respective primes, Green just wasn't as good as Deion. I love Darrell, but he was NEVER the top corner in the league. He was always near the top, but never someone who'd completely shutdown an opponent, or someone that the QB feared throwing at b/c Green would return it for a TD. And through no fault of his own, Green struggled against tall WRs. If Green was 4 inches taller, he would've been Deion's equal. But he wasn't. I've watched Green play alot of games, and Gibbs almost never left Green on the other team's best WR in single coverage the way Deion used to do. Plus, Deion played in a more pass-happy era, which makes his accomplishments even greater. Green had more good years than Sanders. I'd rather have Green than Sanders. But both at their best, Deion was the better player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Originally posted by rv581 But when they were both on the field, in their respective primes, Green just wasn't as good as Deion. I love Darrell, but he was NEVER the top corner in the league. He was always near the top, but never someone who'd completely shutdown an opponent, or someone that the QB feared throwing at b/c Green would return it for a TD. And through no fault of his own, Green struggled against tall WRs. If Green was 4 inches taller, he would've been Deion's equal. But he wasn't. I've watched Green play alot of games, and Gibbs almost never left Green on the other team's best WR in single coverage the way Deion used to do. Plus, Deion played in a more pass-happy era, which makes his accomplishments even greater. Green had more good years than Sanders. I'd rather have Green than Sanders. But both at their best, Deion was the better player. Where are you getting this garbage? I distinctly remember good teams' #1 WR's - Minny's Anthony Carter stands out during the 1987-88 playoffs - complaining that their coaches for the first time all year were not throwing their way because Green was covering them. And yes, he was in single coverage. And for basically the first 7-10 years of Darrell's career, I defy you to tell me who was better than he was at CB. Give me solid examples of how, for example, Green's height adversely affected his play before you think that these ludicrous, unsupported arguments are going to fly. Someone's already told you about how he shut down the very tall - 6'5" or so - Harold Carmichal during the '80's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Funny thing is that most of those who argue for Deion still give the nod to DG for those things that made him the better cornerback anyway. Remember, that while coverage is the most important aspect of playing the position, things like run support and the intangibles are together as important. Deion was a liability in run-support while Green, as he showed several times as late as last year, was very good at this while still, as has been pointed out, he was a top cover guy. Intangibles? After Green returned that punt for a TD against the Bears, I knew we were going to the Superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rv581 Posted January 2, 2003 Author Share Posted January 2, 2003 Originally posted by redman Where are you getting this garbage? Give me solid examples of how, for example, Green's height adversely affected his play before you think that these ludicrous, unsupported arguments are going to fly. Someone's already told you about how he shut down the very tall - 6'5" or so - Harold Carmichal during the '80's. Are you kidding me? Look, I'm NOT a Darrell basher. He belongs in the Hall of Fame, for pete's sake. But his lack of height was a liability. Michael Irvin came into the NFL in the 80s (1988), and even as a young player, Irvin used his size advantage to dominate Darrell Green. Could Green hold his own against Harold Carmichal? Ok. Could Deion? Yeah, I'm sure he could. Is Harold Carmichal as good as Irvin? No. And this proves...? Just b/c he held his own against the legendary Harold freaking Carmichal doesn't mean he didn't struggle against big, physical WRs. Green was an alltime great player, but this was his achille's heel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummagumma Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 The reason Green should be listed higher then Peon is that Green had the longer, better (3 rings v. 2, I believe), and more consistant career. Would you put Bo Jackson on the Top 10 list because "in his prime" he was so great. Of course not, he simply didn't play at a high level long enough. As a previous poster pointed out, with hindsight, who do you draft? The answer is obvious. Even if you think Sanders was better in his prime, you're going to take the 20 year stud over the off and on again dude who hardly played for the team that drafted him because it didn't befit his lofty image of himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Originally posted by rv581 Could Green hold his own against Harold Carmichal? Ok. Could Deion? Yeah, I'm sure he could. Is Harold Carmichal as good as Irvin? No. And this proves...? For your edification, their career stats:Carmichael,Harold Games - 182 Receptions- 590 Yards - 8985 Yards/catch - 15.2 TD's - 79 Irvin,Michael Games - 159 Receptions- 750 Yards - 11904 Yards/catch - 15.9 TD's - 65 And remember, according to you Carmichal played in a more "pass happy era". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rv581 Posted January 3, 2003 Author Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by redman For your edification, their career stats: Carmichael,Harold Games - 182 Receptions- 590 Yards - 8985 Yards/catch - 15.2 TD's - 79 Irvin,Michael Games - 159 Receptions- 750 Yards - 11904 Yards/catch - 15.9 TD's - 65 And remember, according to you Carmichal played in a more "pass happy era". Actually, I said he played in a LESS pass happy era. Football in the 90s and today has MUCH more passing, which puts more pressure on corners. In fact, looking at the numbers you gave, Carmichael averaged just over 3 receptions and less than 50 yards a game. Irvin averaged nearly 5 receptions and about 75 yards a game. If you're using statistics to argue that Carmichael was better than Irvin, I'd suggest you re-examine your statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 IMHO, Faulk doesn't belong on that list. He had a short run of greatness, much like Sayers, but he doesn't have the same transcendent talent. No way he belongs above Sayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Man, how quickly people forget. In the Gibbs years Green was put on the opposing teams best player in single coverage and then left alone. The result, they missed they playoffs once and got to the Superbowl three times. Was he given support or double coverage... rarely. Did he have a lot of interceptions? Nope, but that was partially a function of teams being afraid to throw to his side of the field. All you have to do is read the old articles or listen to the modern interviews of coachs's interviews about him. Should his height and weight have been an obstacle, yeah, was it, not that I can recall. Using Michael Irvin is also bad strategy... choosing one player and saying he didn't do that well against him, could be like picking the exception that makes the rule. Find another example. I trust Jerry Rice, heck I trust my eyes when a couple of years ago in his late thirties, Darrell shut down one on one Randy Moss. Was Deion better? No, the reason is simple and obvious. Deion was great at playing on the sidelines, but all the teams knew you could get away with crossing and slants where he would shy away from contact. Once the receiver made a catch despite his size advantage, who would you want- Green or Sanders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Now, I don't want all this Deion-vs-Darrell argument to create the impression that Deion stank (as a corner). Yes, Deion was also a man-to-man, shutdown corner. I think you're going to see more of them in the future. I remember some NFL personnell man saying that the quality of WRs has gone down in the last decade, overall, because kids who have that kind of size and tallent are being encouraged to become CBs. People pay more attention to that position, now, and the kids like the attention. (He said the same thing was happening with OLs, too: the good ones are being drawn towards defense in high school). I'm just saying, Deion didn't start the trend (towards man-to-man corners). (Darrell may not have ben the first: He may only be the first I heard about. But, the higest Deion can possibly be on that ranking is #2). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 I'm not arguing that Darrell was better at every aspect of the game than Deion. Deion probably was the better cover corner, although not by much. What bugs me are the young folk who speak of Deion 'taking away half the field' like noone ever did that before. Simply not true. Believe it or not, other corners have been able to do this as well. Green and Woodson of the modern era come to mind. Darrell was always put on the opposing team's best WR and left alone. Period. Petibone was an aggressive DC. He loved to put his corners in man coverage and blitz. He loved that he had Darrell because he didn't have to worry about the #1 WR making any impact on the game. And yes, this included bigger WRs who were considerably taller than Green. Green made up for his diminutive size by being a much more physical player than Deion, and didn't shy away from contact the way Deion did. Just ask Randy Moss who has best been able to shut him down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.