Peyton Manning and Willie Mays

[Peter_Spaeth]

Heresy, but I would take Magic over Jordan. Who else could play point guard, center, and every position in between?

[Cardboard Junkie]

I love stuff like this.

Cobb

Unitas

Russell

Howe

[Runscott]

Pete Maravich was probably the best player I ever saw, outside of Magic and Jordan. Maravich would score 40 and you never knew it. He played offense the way Dimaggio played defense - he was always in the right spot, so never looked too flashy. RIP

[Jim65]

I'm not sure who is the QB best ever, but I just can't give it to a guy with a losing playoff record.

[Runscott]

Just to put things in proper perspective,

John Elway was the same quarterback when he won two Superbowls, as he was when he lost three, but now he's great, and before the first win, we were hearing the exact same stuff we are hearing now about Manning. Anyone remember the comeback Elway led against the Browns in the AFC Championship game? Possibly the most incredible ever. That was clutch, and his team still got slaughtered that year in the Superbowl, by the Giants. Does anyone think Elway was somehow able to get it together for the 'unimportant' AFC Championship and be as great a quarterback as he was, but then 'choked' in the Superbowl? You have to deal with the guys around you, and the match-up you are given - the Broncos have not matched up well in most of their Superbowls, but except for Craig Morton, it wasn't for lack of having a great quarterback.

[t206trader]

It's silly to look at playoff record as the end all and be all of a "great" quarterback. Was Jim Kelly just mediocre for reaching the Super Bowl four times? Or how about Dan Marino who never won a Super Bowl? Even if Manning made the Super Bowl every year and lost, he would still have a winning playoff record yet people would complain about how he isn't the greatest because he never won "the big one" (this is of course speculative because as we all know Manning DID win the big one). I don't believe the playoff record hogwash as an indicator of an "elite" quarterback. Based on this logic is Trent Dilfer better than Manning because he went 5-1 in his career in the playoffs?

[Jim65]

Using playoff record to decide if a player is elite or great is hogwash, but using it as one of the factors in determining if he is the best ever is not.

[t206trader]

True, but in virtually every other statistic Manning will finish first. He's light years ahead of Montana in almost every indicator. It's always hard to compare modern quarterbacks with the likes of Unitas or early quarterbacks so an argument can be made but to say that Joe Montana is better because he had more Super Bowl wins is hardly fair. As of today, Peyton Manning and Joe Montana would have the exact same career spans in terms of seasons. Compare the stats, the numbers speak for themselves. When Favre took over the touchdown record it was clear that he wasn't the greatest based on his total package, including QPR, fumbles, and time it took to complete the record. Manning will pass Favre next year for touchdowns a full three seasons earlier than Favre completed the record (19 versus 16 not including Favre's Falcon year or Peyton's injured year.)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Pete Maravich was probably the best player I ever saw, outside of Magic and Jordan. Maravich would score 40 and you never knew it. He played offense the way Dimaggio played defense - he was always in the right spot, so never looked too flashy. RIP

Scott have you ever seen some of the Maravich highlight reels? He was as spectacularly flashy a player as ever played. Not that he wasn't also sound fundamentally and was certainly capable of the type of game you described, but he was also a human highlight film.

[Peter_Spaeth]

This is a very interesting list.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...243155121.html

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Scott have you ever seen some of the Maravich highlight reels? He was as spectacularly flashy a player as ever played. Not that he wasn't also sound fundamentally and was certainly capable of the type of game you described, but he was also a human highlight film.

That's interesting - no, I was never much of a basketball fan, but my Dad took me to see the New Orleans Jazz any time they were in Denver, just because he loved Maravich. What impressed me was that Maravich was never flashy, and always scored tons of points. He just glided around the court and always seemed to be open. I'll have to take a look at him again.

[MyGuyTy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Heresy, but I would take Magic over Jordan. Who else could play point guard, center, and every position in between?

I concur, I'm taking Magic over Michael every time if I'm starting a team.

Top 4 of all time in each sport:

Baseball - Ruth
Football - Rice
Hockey - Gretzky
Basketball - Magic

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MyGuyTy

I concur, I'm taking Magic over Michael every time if I'm starting a team.

Top 4 of all time in each sport:

Baseball - Ruth
Football - Rice
Hockey - Gretzky
Basketball - Magic

Hard to argue with that list, although I will LOL
Baseball - Ruth
Football - Brown
Hockey - Orr
Basketball _ Magic

[Peter_Spaeth]

"A compilation of no-look passes, behind-the-back moves, and circus shots. A reminder of what made him so mind blowing in the first place." SPORTS ILLUSTRATED (March 2007) on this highlight mix.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8qUZILi8IM

Some great footage here too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHmgWeY7heM

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"A compilation of no-look passes, behind-the-back moves, and circus shots. A reminder of what made him so mind blowing in the first place." SPORTS ILLUSTRATED (March 2007) on this highlight mix.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8qUZILi8IM

Some great footage here too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHmgWeY7heM

That second video was incredible.

[MyGuyTy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Hard to argue with that list, although I will LOL
Baseball - Ruth
Football - Brown
Hockey - Orr
Basketball _ Magic

I'll definitely give you Orr, the man redefined the defense position. It's really a toss up between Gretzky and Orr. Brown though, not so sure about that one. Great runner for his time and certainly the best RB of his era, but he's not even the best at his position of all time, so it's hard for me to put him best player in the entire NFL all time.

*Edited to add* I have Brown #3 on the all time best behind Rice and Sanders.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MyGuyTy

I'll definitely give you Orr, the man redefined the defense position. It's really a toss up between Gretzky and Orr. Brown though, not so sure about that one. Great runner for his time and certainly the best RB of his era, but he's not even the best at his position of all time, so it's hard for me to put him best player in the entire NFL all time.

*Edited to add* I have Brown #3 on the all time best behind Rice and Sanders.

It wasn't hard for the Sporting News:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=4786953

[MyGuyTy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It wasn't hard for the Sporting News:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=4786953

They lost credibility when they put Don Hutson at #6 and 55% completion Otto Graham in the top 10, while tossing Reggie White to the 30's!.....lol. Ridiculous. Otto Graham isn't even a top 5 QB, let alone a top 7 all time. Colin Cowherd's take on old timers putting Otto Graham as a top QB was funny to listen to. Statistically speaking, Graham was average at best. Different era, different styles, he wouldn't even have been relevant if he played from the 70's and onward. Top 10, Top 25, Top 100 Interweb lists change every year, and sometimes monthly, lol.

I know it's hard to do sometimes but you have to take into consideration the eras. If a guy like Don Hutson played in 80's, 90's and 2000's he's be a 3rd best option. I can't ignore speed, size and pace of today's players over the last 40 years. You can take many players today and put them back in the 40's and 50's and they'd be instant "legends". I do have a few guys from that era that really stood out, but I'm not filling my list of top 20 guys with the majority of them from the 50's. This is almost exclusive only in football because of the skill, speed, size and violence that's inherent to the sport today.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by MyGuyTy

You can take many players today and put them back in the 40's and 50's and they'd be instant "legends".

That might be true, but if you took yesterday's stars and gave them the high school and college development that we have now, plus the performance enhancements, I think they would fit right in. The thing is - it doesn't really matter. Incentives for making a career out of football were different back then, the ball was different, equipment, etc. If you compare the size of an offensive or defensive line in the '60s to today, you will be amazed.

There are only a few star players I can think of from the '60s that I feel would not be stars today. On the other hand, I would love to see Fran Tarkenton in this year's Seattle offense.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MyGuyTy

They lost credibility when they put Don Hutson at #6 and 55% completion Otto Graham in the top 10, while tossing Reggie White to the 30's!.....lol. Ridiculous. Otto Graham isn't even a top 5 QB, let alone a top 7 all time. Colin Cowherd's take on old timers putting Otto Graham as a top QB was funny to listen to. Statistically speaking, Graham was average at best. Different era, different styles, he wouldn't even have been relevant if he played from the 70's and onward. Top 10, Top 25, Top 100 Interweb lists change every year, and sometimes monthly, lol.

I know it's hard to do sometimes but you have to take into consideration the eras. If a guy like Don Hutson played in 80's, 90's and 2000's he's be a 3rd best option. I can't ignore speed, size and pace of today's players over the last 40 years. You can take many players today and put them back in the 40's and 50's and they'd be instant "legends". I do have a few guys from that era that really stood out, but I'm not filling my list of top 20 guys with the majority of them from the 50's. This is almost exclusive only in football because of the skill, speed, size and violence that's inherent to the sport today.

I think you can only evaluate players in the context of their era. Your statement is like saying Roger Bannister wasn't a great miler because any high school kid today can run his times.