Top-50 HoFers

[THUMPER]

Maybe I'll whip something up a litte later, its only 2pm pacific over here.



But I wouldn't have Largent on my top 50 all time, especially if it means no Lombardi. I would also flip flop Walter Payton w/Jim Brown. Brown was not only more dominant during his era, he also won more. And as much as I love Schramm, don't think I put him over Shula (or even over Knoll, who's not even on your list).



Marchetti and Deacon Jones should be placed higher than guys like Haynes and Singletary (he would not make my top 50 all time either).

I have Mike Haynes ranked as my #1 all-time CB so I can't rate him higher than those others.

It is tough when you only have 50 spots to fit everyone into.

Vince Lombardi is one of the most overrated HCs ever. Not saying he wasn't great but he was far from the greatest or even one of the top-5 IMO. He got a lot out of the guys he had but he didn't put that team together and only did it over a 9-year period. Compare that with guys like Paul Brown, Landry, Halas, & Shula who did it with multiple teams/squads that they built and for 25+ years.

Lombardi was a fundamentals guy too. There were no innovative strategies like what those others came up with, just basic blocking and tackling. Again, he was outstanding at that but he doesn't rate with those others I mentioned.

I would also rank Sid Gillman ahead of Lombardi on the basis of being an innovator. The modern passing game owes a lot to Gillman and Bill Walsh owes his "genius" status to Gillman as well since the WCO is based on Sid's offense.

 

[BAT]

I have Mike Haynes ranked as my #1 all-time CB so I can't rate him higher than those others.

It is tough when you only have 50 spots to fit everyone into.

Vince Lombardi is one of the most overrated HCs ever. Not saying he wasn't great but he was far from the greatest or even one of the top-5 IMO. He got a lot out of the guys he had but he didn't put that team together and only did it over a 9-year period. Compare that with guys like Paul Brown, Landry, Halas, & Shula who did it with multiple teams/squads that they built and for 25+ years.

Lombardi was a fundamentals guy too. There were no innovative strategies like what those others came up with, just basic blocking and tackling. Again, he was outstanding at that but he doesn't rate with those others I mentioned.

I would also rank Sid Gillman ahead of Lombardi on the basis of being an innovator. The modern passing game owes a lot to Gillman and Bill Walsh owes his "genius" status to Gillman as well since the WCO is based on Sid's offense.

I guess if you are using this as your primary criteria, innovations causing the game to change/evolve/grow, then you should also add Bob Hayes (forced to teams to play zone), Fairbanks (traditional 3-4), Bum Phillips (Phillips 3-4) and Bill Walsh (West Coast Offense). Sid Gillman too and even Walsh. While Walsh was influenced by Gillman's "True" West Coast Offense (stressed the vertical passing game), his version of the WCO was mis-named and very different from the true successors of Gillman's: Coryell, Gibbs, Zampese, Turner, Vermeil, Martz, Cameron, Garrett, etc.

I mentioned Lombardi and Knoll b/c their impact on the game may not have been structural (changing the way the game was played), but historical. They created such dominant teams (dynasties, if you will) that you cannot think about pro football today w/out mentioning their teams/players/successes.

 

[THUMPER]

I guess if you are using this as your primary criteria, innovations causing the game to change/evolve/grow, then you should also add Bob Hayes (forced to teams to play zone), Fairbanks (traditional 3-4), Bum Phillips (Phillips 3-4) and Bill Walsh (West Coast Offense). Sid Gillman too and even Walsh. While Walsh was influenced by Gillman's "True" West Coast Offense (stressed the vertical passing game), his version of the WCO was mis-named and very different from the true successors of Gillman's: Coryell, Gibbs, Zampese, Turner, Vermeil, Martz, Cameron, Garrett, etc.

I mentioned Lombardi and Knoll b/c their impact on the game may not have been structural (changing the way the game was played), but historical. They created such dominant teams (dynasties, if you will) that you cannot think about pro football today w/out mentioning their teams/players/successes.

Noll was similar to Lombardi in being a basics guy. He had success for a longer period of time and also built the Stealers through the draft. Lombardi inherited most of the great Packers players when he came there in 1959. If I recall, 7 of the 10 HoFers were already there when he got there.

Lombardi and Noll got the most out of their players which is why they had such outstanding success but I cannot rank them ahead of HCs who were true innovators and team builders. They were the next HCs on my list for what it is worth.

 

[BAT]

Noll was similar to Lombardi in being a basics guy. He had success for a longer period of time and also built the Stealers through the draft. Lombardi inherited most of the great Packers players when he came there in 1959. If I recall, 7 of the 10 HoFers were already there when he got there.

Lombardi and Noll got the most out of their players which is why they had such outstanding success but I cannot rank them ahead of HCs who were true innovators and team builders. They were the next HCs on my list for what it is worth.

Not that your list did not make sense, but it makes more sense to me now in that context.

 

[THUMPER]

Not that your list did not make sense, but it makes more sense to me now in that context.

Like I said in the OP, my criteria is likely different from what others would use. That's why I'm hoping to see some others post their lists so I can see what they value.

 

[jackrussell]

Link doesn't seem to work.

Try this one: LINK

I won't even try to list what would be the greatest of greats. While there are many players that should be in that aren't...there's no denying that nearly everyone that is in...should be.

I would probably lean toward Papa Bear as #1...while not entirely the reason the NFL exists, he certainly was the face of it for decades.

I don't hold it against a player if his career was short. In fact, I may look at him as someone even more special as to have made such an impact in such a short time. I'm talking directly of Gale Sayers. The Kansas Comet was as smooth a runner there ever was before or since. He could shift gears without shifting gears, if that makes any sense. A very special player that holds his own against guys that played for 10-15 seasons.

I will prop Landry top 15. An enduring figure of the league's most visible franchise...I doubt anyone could ever put together the string of seasons he did. Shoot, given his first few years, most people here wouldn't even have given him a chance in this day and age.

BTW...anyone for HOF event tickets, they go on sale tomorrow, the 24th. LINK

 

[THUMPER]

Link doesn't seem to work.

Try this one: LINK

I won't even try to list what would be the greatest of greats. While there are many players that should be in that aren't...there's no denying that nearly everyone that is in...should be.

I would probably lean toward Papa Bear as #1...while not entirely the reason the NFL exists, he certainly was the face of it for decades.

I don't hold it against a player if his career was short. In fact, I may look at him as someone even more special as to have made such an impact in such a short time. I'm talking directly of Gale Sayers. The Kansas Comet was as smooth a runner there ever was before or since. He could shift gears without shifting gears, if that makes any sense. A very special player that holds his own against guys that played for 10-15 seasons.

I will prop Landry top 15. An enduring figure of the league's most visible franchise...I doubt anyone could ever put together the string of seasons he did. Shoot, given his first few years, most people here wouldn't even have given him a chance in this day and age.

BTW...anyone for HOF event tickets, they go on sale tomorrow, the 24th. LINK

I could easily see Halas as #1. It was tough coming up with this list. It is very difficult to gauge the value of a player vs a HC or a guy like Tex Schramm.

For me a player/coach has to be great over an extended period of time to be considered "great". Otherwise he is simply the "best". But that's just my opinion.

 

[THUMPER]

Still waiting to see lists from BAT, Hostile, Adam, and some of the others...

Here is an updated link: http://www.cantonrep.com/sports/hall_of_fame/x737335868/Pick-the-Top-50-Hall-of-Famers-of-all-time

 

[TwoDeep3]

Thumper - your list was interesting. But how could any player be in front of Landry who designed defenses that are used today and Schramm who designed the league as we see it?

These things are subjective, so I have no problem with your list as it stands. But it would appear the coaches who created the game as it is played now would be above players who played the game under their supervision.

 

[burmafrd]

Remember that through the 40's all players were two way players (or most were). That is why I put Bronko in the list. He was a great LB as well.

 

[THUMPER]

Thumper - your list was interesting. But how could any player be in front of Landry who designed defenses that are used today and Schramm who designed the league as we see it?

These things are subjective, so I have no problem with your list as it stands. But it would appear the coaches who created the game as it is played now would be above players who played the game under their supervision.

I thought about just listing the coaches & others ahead of the players for that reason but decided against it. I tried to evaluate the contribution, ability, performance, production, innovation, leadership, longevity, impact, the era they were in, and intangibles of each person being selected. I especially tried to take into account the "full package" of what they had done. How consistent were they? Were they only great for a few years or was it over an extended period of time?

With all of that taken into account I couldn't simply take George Halas and put him at the top. Halas is in essence the "father" of the NFL which is why he is in the top-5 but he wasn't great for every one of his 40+ years in the league. There were a number of years when he was out of coaching then came back, or his teams weren't very good. He had incredible success, particularly early on, but after a while success seemed to elude him and the second half of his career was nowhere near as good as the first half had been.

I had Paul Brown in the top spot a couple of times and switched him out with a number of others (including Halas) before settling on Baugh. I went with Baugh because he was consistently great for nearly his entire career, usually at multiple positions. Lots of guys played both sides of the ball in that era but very few were all-pro at more than one. Baugh was outstanding in all 3! They didn't keep track of INTs by a DB in those days but I heard that Baugh was very dangerous in the backfield, kind of the original Deion Sanders in suckering a QB to throw to a receiver that seemed open only for Baugh to read it and close in for the pick.

That's the reason I am so interested in seeing other people's lists, I'd like to see what criteria others use for evaluating and ranking players/coaches.

 

[THUMPER]

Remember that through the 40's all players were two way players (or most were). That is why I put Bronko in the list. He was a great LB as well.

He was very close to making my final list. I think he, Lombardi and Sid Luckman were next (I don't have the big list in the same format I was using before).