In some rating scales, the very best player in certain drafts may in fact be the guard or center. I hear glowing reports about David DeCastro in this year's draft...tht he may in fact be better than anyone at his position (except Andrew Luck).

But no way is an OG like him likely to be picked higher than the middle of the first round now matter how good he may be.

Like I said, I gave MY choices on this list, and they are certainly subject to second guessing....even by me. I tried not to always select the offensive skill player. I would have had many easier choices if I had.

@tour2ma said:

Not picking on you, Z... just tryin' to keep you honest...

If Munoz (the NFL Top 100's highest rated OL at #12) is a 9.5, then I wanna know who your standard-bearing OT is...

And as you probably know LT was #61 on the list... and I don't think he's done anything since the list was set to increase his ranking.

Did you read the part where I said on my scale the highest a Tackle could score is a 9.5? I am saying Anthony Munoz is the greatest tackle ever. He has a perfect score on my tackle scale, but I rate tackles on a sightly different scale than skill positions and defenders.

You can't keep me honest if you don't read what I write.

Did they have Steve Hutchinson ranked higher than LT? Does anyone outside of you and Hutchinson's mom (Gipper has conceded that I am probably right) have him annointed the best player in the 2001 draft?

Best. You look back at the draft and you say we passed up on a guard that made all-pro every year and we passed up on a running back with 18,500 yards and 168 TDs (third all time). Which was the Best?

I would argue Brees over Hutchinson as well.

Not because Hutch wasn't the best of all the guards during his era ... but because he was a guard. His greatness is capped below the best of the best who are scoring TD's on Sundays. It just is. A guard that does his job better than anybody who has ever done his job still is not in the same air as Unitas, Rice, Payton, Peyton, etc... Tomlinson reached that rare air. He was, at one point, the best player in the league. Hutch never was.

Zombo

If Munoz (the NFL Top 100's highest rated OL at #12) is a 9.5, then I wanna know who your standard-bearing OT is...

And as you probably know LT was #61 on the list... and I don't think he's done anything since the list was set to increase his ranking.

@tour2ma said:

Jan Stenerud 1699 points

VS.

LT 972 points

It's Gip's greatest team argument all over again... except this time I agree with him or at least I did until...

Thats'a great point about the All-Pro selection, but for bringing up the '78 Steelers debate, which you are wrong about , I'm going to start agreeing with Zombo now...

First, how 'bout Monk vs. Munoz? I really want to hear your opinion of that one...

Second, for a guy who not arguing "value", you used the word valuable in most of your arguments... even alluded to LT's MVP year...

1. Dude, Jan Stenerud is a kicker ... can you absorb that, or do I need to explain?

2. Munoz 9.5 out of 9.5 on the Tackle scale, Monk 9.0 out of 10.0 on the WR scale, Munoz trumps.

3. Is "value" bothering you that much? Tomlinson was the BEST player in the NFL circa 2006 ... does that help?

Z

Zombo said:

Third Most Touchdowns Ever

vs.

Guard

Zombo

--pffffft.

Jan Stenerud 1699 points

VS.

LT 972 points

It's Gip's greatest team argument all over again... except this time I agree with him or at least I did until...

@the-gipper said:

But in trying to define greatness I think this question can be asked, and perhaps answered:

Who was better at doing what his position called for...the running back or the offensive lineman?

Hutchinson HAS been selected more time for being the best at what he does than Tomlinson has.

Yes, it is a big apples and oranges question.

It is like Tourma who argues that because the '78 Steelers OL and DL weighed more than the OL and DL of the '48 Browns that that automatically makes them the better team.

(and I countered with: if that is the criteria then the 2011 Browns would blow away the '78 Steelers because they average 50 more pounds across the board.)

Apples and oranges: Which team dominated its competition more....which player dominated his competition more?

Thats'a great point about the All-Pro selection, but for bringing up the '78 Steelers debate, which you are wrong about , I'm going to start agreeing with Zombo now...

Zombo said:

I didn't look them all over, but yes Fouts over Hannah.

I'm not talking just "most valuable" I am talking "Best".

Zombo

First, how 'bout Monk vs. Munoz? I really want to hear your opinion of that one...

Second, for a guy who not arguing "value", you used the word valuable in most of your arguments... even alluded to LT's MVP year...

Zombo said:

Third Most Touchdowns Ever

vs.

Guard

Zombo

--pffffft.

And 0 rings to show for it.

@the-gipper said:

OK Z, what about my choice of Champ Bailey over Donovan McNabb?

I think Bailey is an elite defensive player, a sure fire HOFer. Not so McNabb. He will be given consideration, but would anyone be surprised if he didn't make it?

I will give Bailey 10 of 10 as a Corner and McNabb a 9 out off 11 as a QB. Maybe a 8.5

Zombo

@the-gipper said:

Trust me, I stuggled with that choice for the very reasons you quote. Your argument is convincing and I would have no problem going either way.

Maybe I will give that one to you....but like I said above, I had hard choices to make in other years.

In 1995 I chose the RB over the defensive linemen when I took Martin over Sapp. And I went the other direction in 1982 with Munchak over Allen....but the opposite choice there is also supportable.

As I asked before, how far do you take this agrument? Should the skill player be taken over the lineman?

Would you say that Monk should have been chosen over Munoz?

The two biggest stuggles I had were in choosing Forrest Gregg over Bart Starr, and Joe Greene over OJ Simpson. And next was Dan Dierdorf over John Riggins.

I actually may have made some of these choices because I didn't want it to seem that I was just always going to choose the "glamorous" offensive skill player, though I was tempted to do so.

One thing I did do is that I only chose between players that were in the HOF. I figured I would rely on the HOF voters to at least whittle down the options for me.

I understand, you actually did a great job, I just think Tomlinson's greatness gets overlooked sometimes. All I know is that I worried to death when we had to face Tomilinson but never feared having to go up against Hutchinson.

In reality, maybe a sliding scale needs to be developed. Whereas most positions are graded on a "10", guards can only get a 9, tackles can go to 9.5. running backs can go to 10.5, QBs to 11.

So, on my scale, Sapp is a 10 out of 10 and Martin is a 10 out of 10.5

Forrest Gregg gets a 9.5, the best score he can get, but Bart Starr gets a 10 out of 11 and trumps him

Joe Greene gets a 10 out of 10, but O.J. gets a 10.5 out of 10.5

Dierdorf gets the highest score a guard can get (although he played some tackle too) at 9, while I'll give Riggins a 9.5 out of 10.5 on the RB scale

And Hutchinson gets a full 9 on the guard scale, but Tomlinson gets a 10.5 on the RB scale.

Just playing around ... it's all relative.

Zombo

I think Bailey is an elite defensive player, a sure fire HOFer. Not so McNabb. He will be given consideration, but would anyone be surprised if he didn't make it?

Zombo said:

I didn't look them all over, but yes Fouts over Hannah.

By my criteria there is no way in hell you make a case of Stenerud over Mack, Kickers don't belong in this discussion.

There is no way in fucking hell you score the third most TDs in NFL history but you're not the the best player in your own draft class because a guard made All-Pro every year.

I'm not talking just "most valuable" I am talking "Best".

The origninal poster cried that the Browns never draft the best player and that was what inspired this thread. Gipper put up a list of who he feels was the best player in each draft.

The best player in 2001 was Tomlinson. If they did it over Tomlinson and Drew Brees would go before Hutchinson, you know it, I know it, gipper knows it, and Hutchinson's mom knows it.

The guardiest guard of all guards will never ever be a better player than LaDainian Tomlinson. He was the best player in the league for a stretch of time, a league that included Brady and Manning. Hutchinson is an elite guard. Tomlinson is among the most eite football players ever to play the game.

Zombo

Trust me, I stuggled with that choice for the very reasons you quote. Your argument is convincing and I would have no problem going either way.

Maybe I will give that one to you....but like I said above, I had hard choices to make in other years.

In 1995 I chose the RB over the defensive linemen when I took Martin over Sapp. And I went the other direction in 1982 with Munchak over Allen....but the opposite choice there is also supportable.

As I asked before, how far do you take this agrument? Should the skill player be taken over the lineman?

Would you say that Monk should have been chosen over Munoz?

The two biggest stuggles I had were in choosing Forrest Gregg over Bart Starr, and Joe Greene over OJ Simpson. And next was Dan Dierdorf over John Riggins.

I actually may have made some of these choices because I didn't want it to seem that I was just always going to choose the "glamorous" offensive skill player, though I was tempted to do so.

One thing I did do is that I only chose between players that were in the HOF. I figured I would rely on the HOF voters to at least whittle down the options for me.

@the-gipper said:

I think Tourma is making some good counter arguments.

Perhaps if they counted "Pancake Blocks" the way they do yards and TDs etc. there could be some comparison.

Your points are well taken....but when you begin to sound like Ghoolie...well, there is a natural resistance to your position, even if I would be otherwise inclined to agree.

Third Most Touchdowns Ever

vs.

Guard

Zombo

--pffffft.

Yes, of course it is, but I did it any way just for shits and giggles. That is why it was foolish for Brownfish to get his panties in a bunch over my choice of Peterson.

For all we know Cam Newton may become the next Vince Young, and Peterson the next Darrel Greene....or maybe not.

Zombo said:

Tomlinson!

Your competition is not the beauty contest at the end of the year that sends the same linemen to Honolulu every year, it is the games on Sunday which LT dominated.

Being the best of all the guards is nice, but the truly special players in the NFL are the Tom Brady's and Peyton Manning's and the Jim Brown's, Marcus allen's and Ladanian Tomlinson's

The best guard in the league is not as valuble as the 5th best running back or the 10th best quarterback.

In 2006, Tomlinson scored 31 TDs .. the entire Browns roster that year scored 25 ... guards included.

LaDainian Tomlinson has scored the third most touchdowns in the entire history of the NFL:

Jerry Rice

Emmitt Smith

LaDainian Tomlinson

That's the list of all-time TD leaders since 1920. Touchdowns are kind of important in the grand sceme of things.

How about all-time leading rushers: Tomlinson is 5th.

Only two guys scored more touchdowns, only four guys ran for more yards ... there is no guard in the world that was a better football player.

Accumulating Pro bowls and All Pros as a guard is not the same thing as scoring more touchdowns than everybody else. It just isn't.

Apples and oranges my ass. The question is who was the best player in that draft, and the answer is LaDainian Tomilnson.

Zombo

I think Tourma is making some good counter arguments.

Perhaps if they counted "Pancake Blocks" the way they do yards and TDs etc. there could be some comparison.

Your points are well taken....but when you begin to sound like Ghoolie...well, there is a natural resistance to your position, even if I would be otherwise inclined to agree.

@brownfish said:

I looked at this and as soon as I saw Peterson over Cam Newton then Ware over Rodgers and Jake Long over Chris Johnson i didn't even want to read anymore.

That is because you are apparently incapable of in depth analysis, or apparently of understanding the subtleties and qualities of the "non-skill" positions.

Ware has been to the Pro Bowl 6 times and named ALL Pro at his position 4 times. Rodgers has been to 2 Pro Bowls and made one All Pro team.

By certain objective measures Ware has been superior at manning his position than Rodgers has been at his.

Same with Jake Long: Numerous All Pro and Pro Bowls vs. fewer for Johnson.

And Peterson was one of only 3 rookies last year to make the Pro Bowl, and the only rookie to make first team All Pro.

You are just seeing the surface/flashy things that come in front of your eyes. Do some critical analysis.

@tour2ma said:

Interesting topic there Gip... I'll whip up my list later... but no way do I go back to '36...

One general thought... I think it's too soon to judge "greatest" for the past four to eight drafts.

You forgot me...

Hutchinson and Munchek are two of the Greatest Guards to ever play the game. They were generational talents and were easily all-time, top fivers at their position..

Are Tomlinson and Allen both top five RB's on your list?

There is an argument to be had...

The question was "Greatest", not "most valuable".

Great is a reflection of skill and physical prowess at the position played.

Value is as you say production.

Right argument, but wrong topic there Z...

Here's a couple you did not seem to have a problem with, defying your own "logic"...

Care to comment? Fouts over Hannah ought to be easy... How 'bout Monk over Munoz?

By your criteria you have to also make the case for Stenerud over Tom Mack...

I didn't look them all over, but yes Fouts over Hannah.

By my criteria there is no way in hell you make a case of Stenerud over Mack, Kickers don't belong in this discussion.

There is no way in fucking hell you score the third most TDs in NFL history but you're not the the best player in your own draft class because a guard made All-Pro every year.

I'm not talking just "most valuable" I am talking "Best".

The origninal poster cried that the Browns never draft the best player and that was what inspired this thread. Gipper put up a list of who he feels was the best player in each draft.

The best player in 2001 was Tomlinson. If they did it over Tomlinson and Drew Brees would go before Hutchinson, you know it, I know it, gipper knows it, and Hutchinson's mom knows it.

The guardiest guard of all guards will never ever be a better player than LaDainian Tomlinson. He was the best player in the league for a stretch of time, a league that included Brady and Manning. Hutchinson is an elite guard. Tomlinson is among the most eite football players ever to play the game.

Zombo

One general thought... I think it's too soon to judge "greatest" for the past four to eight drafts.

Zombo said:

You and Steve Hutchinson's mom are the only people that think he was a greater player than Tomlinson.

You forgot me...

Hutchinson and Munchek are two of the Greatest Guards to ever play the game. They were generational talents and were easily all-time, top fivers at their position..

Are Tomlinson and Allen both top five RB's on your list?

There is an argument to be had...

Zombo said:

Being the best of all the guards is nice, but the truly special players in the NFL are the Tom Brady's and Peyton Manning's and the Jim Brown's, Marcus allen's and Ladanian Tomlinson's.

The best guard in the league is not as valuble as the 5th best running back or the 10th best quarterback.

The question was "Greatest", not "most valuable".

Great is a reflection of skill and physical prowess at the position played.

Value is as you say production.

Right argument, but wrong topic there Z...

Here's a couple you did not seem to have a problem with, defying your own "logic"...

1966 Tom Mack C Rams #2 (over Jan Stenerud)

1968 Art Shell OT Raiders #80 (over Csonka)

1971 Dan Dierdorf OT Cards #43 (over Riggins)

1973 John Hannah OG Pats #4 (over Fouts)

1980 Anthony Munoz OT Bengals #3 (over Monk)

1994 Larry Allen OG Cowboys #46 (over Falk)

2008 Jake Long OT Dolphins #1 (over Chris Johnson)

Care to comment? Fouts over Hannah ought to be easy... How 'bout Monk over Munoz?

By your criteria you have to also make the case for Stenerud over Tom Mack...

@the-gipper said:

....which player dominated his competition more?

Tomlinson!

Your competition is not the beauty contest at the end of the year that sends the same linemen to Honolulu every year, it is the games on Sunday which LT dominated.

Being the best of all the guards is nice, but the truly special players in the NFL are the Tom Brady's and Peyton Manning's and the Jim Brown's, Marcus allen's and Ladanian Tomlinson's

The best guard in the league is not as valuble as the 5th best running back or the 10th best quarterback.

In 2006, Tomlinson scored 31 TDs .. the entire Browns roster that year scored 25 ... guards included.

LaDainian Tomlinson has scored the third most touchdowns in the entire history of the NFL:

Jerry Rice

Emmitt Smith

LaDainian Tomlinson

That's the list of all-time TD leaders since 1920. Touchdowns are kind of important in the grand sceme of things.

How about all-time leading rushers: Tomlinson is 5th.

Only two guys scored more touchdowns, only four guys ran for more yards ... there is no guard in the world that was a better football player.

Accumulating Pro bowls and All Pros as a guard is not the same thing as scoring more touchdowns than everybody else. It just isn't.

Apples and oranges my ass. The question is who was the best player in that draft, and the answer is LaDainian Tomilnson.

Zombo

Zombo said:

There is not one GM in the world that would pass up Jim Brown for Gene Hickerson or LaDanian Tomlinson for Steve Hutchinson.

You and Steve Hutchinson's mom are the only people that think he was a greater player than Tomlinson.

Zombo

--and deep down, even Mom knows better.

On the whole I agree that you would not make that trade.

But in trying to define greatness I think this question can be asked, and perhaps answered:

Who was better at doing what his position called for...the running back or the offensive lineman?

Hutchinson HAS been selected more time for being the best at what he does than Tomlinson has.

Yes, it is a big apples and oranges question.

It is like Tourma who argues that because the '78 Steelers OL and DL weighed more than the OL and DL of the '48 Browns that that automatically makes them the better team.

(and I countered with: if that is the criteria then the 2011 Browns would blow away the '78 Steelers because they average 50 more pounds across the board.)

Apples and oranges: Which team dominated its competition more....which player dominated his competition more?

@the-gipper said:

I think the Superstars sell tickets, but they equally win games. Ask Jim Brown....he readily admitted that he would have been nothing without the likes of Shafrath and Hickerson in front of him.

There is not one GM in the world that would pass up Jim Brown for Gene Hickerson or LaDanian Tomlinson for Steve Hutchinson.

You and Steve Hutchinson's mom are the only people that think he was a greater player than Tomlinson.

Zombo

--and deep down, even Mom knows better.

Zombo said:

Yes, apparently, and surprisingly, it is arguable.

It is easy for me though, because I followed their careers.

[b]Greatness is not mathematical, you can't just add up Pro Bowls and All Pros and measure guys from different positions and eras equally.

But here's some math: LaDanian Tomlinson scored 162 TDS.

In a 149 games with the Chargers, he scored 153 TDs ... more than a TD per game.

But here you just used mathematics to prove your point. You could likewise say "you can't just add up yards and TDs" ...but you did just that.

If you are the GM and they are re-holding the the 2001 draft, Do you take the guy that is going to average a touchdown a week for nine years, or are you going to take a really good guard who is a really good blocker and makes lots of All-Pro teams?

I'll take the touchdowns ... and the 18,500 yards from scrimmage. I'll find a decent guard to block for him.

Zombo

--Superstars win games and sell tickets ... guards block. [/b]

I think the Superstars sell tickets, but they equally win games. Ask Jim Brown....he readily admitted that he would have been nothing without the likes of Shafrath and Hickerson in front of him.

@the-gipper said:

And without the Guards, Tackles and Centers, Tomlinson and Allen are knocked on their asses for a 4 yard loss instead of a 73 yard gain.

And if I say it is arguable, it is arguable, because I am arguing

(But I still feel you...these were some of the hardest choices)

Yes, apparently, and surprisingly, it is arguable.

It is easy for me though, because I followed their careers.

Greatness is not mathematical, you can't just add up Pro Bowls and All Pros and measure guys from different positions and eras equally.

But here's some math: LaDanian Tomlinson scored 162 TDS.

In a 149 games with the Chargers, he scored 153 TDs ... more than a TD per game.

If you are the GM and they are re-holding the the 2001 draft, Do you take the guy that is going to average a touchdown a week for nine years, or are you going to take a really good guard who is a really good blocker and makes lots of All-Pro teams?

I'll take the touchdowns ... and the 18,500 yards from scrimmage. I'll find a decent guard to block for him.

Zombo

--Superstars win games and sell tickets ... guards block.

@cambridgeho said:

Ware is a great talent, but Rodgers has that one thing that beats a pro bowl, a championship ring.

So does the long snapper on the Packers. So did Mark Rypien, and neither of them were going to get the vote as the best player drafted. That alone couldn't be my sole criteria...though it could certainly come into play as the years go on.

Most guys drafted pre 2000 I can get a handle on. For post 2000 I had to go mostly with Pro Bowl/1st team results.

E.g. for 2004 I chose Larry Fitzgerald over both Eli and BR. I have a feeling that at the conclusion of their careers it may not stay that way, but for now, I chose the guy with the most accolades over the 2 QBs with 2 rings.

(Nevertheless, good food for thought)