USA Today: Top 25 NFL players of the past 25 years

[SkinsandTerps]

We dont when 3 SB's without Emmitt. We won games and playoff games without Troy.

I know you meant WIN, not "when".

Umm. Well. You see...

Crazy Cowboy doesnt ride the bus with the rest of us. Its a smaller bus.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I'll take a stab at it...
1. Joe Montana
2. Walter Payton
3. Jerry Rice
4. Reggie White
5. Lawrence Taylor
6. John Elway

Elway will probably be a couple of spots higher

 

[burmafrd]

Craig was a little later as I recall. Clark was pretty good; but the rest of them early on were not WORLD CLASS as in PRO BOWL all the time like Rice was.
Point is that he had better teams later on.

 

[AdamJT13]

no matter what poll comes out for what reason, there's always some uber-homer mad cause WAH - they don't like my player!!!

And there's always some uber-downer who thinks it's OK if a Hall of Famer is ranked behind some third-string special teamer.

 

[kTXe]

Honestly, all I really care about is that Emmitt is ranked ahead of Barry. Glad to see that there are some people out there that get it.

 

[ReturnToGlory]

'90s Cowboys without Troy -> '90s Lions
'90s Lions with Troy -> '90s Cowboys

Enough said.

 

[iceberg]

And there's always some uber-downer who thinks it's OK if a Hall of Famer is ranked behind some third-string special teamer.

did i *say* that was the case? NO. but nice job anyway.

 

[tyke1doe]

I'll take a stab at it...
1. Joe Montana
2. Walter Payton
3. Jerry Rice
4. Reggie White
5. Lawrence Taylor
6. John Elway

1. Jerry Rice - no wide receiver will come close to his record.
2. Joe Montana - ultimate clutch quarterback.
3. Lawrence Taylor - redefined the linebacker position.
4. Walter Payton - image looms large of the entire NFL - still.
5. Reggie White - master sacker.
6. John Elway - arguably the best quarterback of the modern era.

 

[AdamJT13]

did i *say* that was the case? NO. but nice job anyway.

Why would you think I was talking about you?

 

[03EBZ06]

Why would you think I was talking about you?

Maybe because you quoted his post?

Just a guess but I could be wrong.

 

[AdamJT13]

Maybe because you quoted his post?

Just a guess but I could be wrong.

I was responding to his post. That doesn't mean I was talking about him.

Just like I quoted your post so I could respond to it. But that doesn't mean I'm talking about you, either.

 

[iceberg]

Why would you think I was talking about you?

cause you qutoed my post and used "uber" in the same manner i did, just in the other direction.

it's common internet practice to "quote" someone you're replying to. it's also fair to say if you use unique words they used you're referencing them, their post, and in a world gone wild, replying to them.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

cause you qutoed my post and used "uber" in the same manner i did, just in the other direction.

it's common internet practice to "quote" someone you're replying to. it's also fair to say if you use unique words they used you're referencing them, their post, and in a world gone wild, replying to them.

I think it's just a simple case of contrasting

you called out the uber-homers, and he called out the uber-downers

but if you're feeling guilty...:

 

[iceberg]

I think it's just a simple case of contrasting

you called out the uber-homers, and he called out the uber-downers

but if you're feeling guilty...:

not a case of feeling guilty.

wow - did i just quote and reply to you?

now, could he have NOT been meaning me? sure. but by context, common practice and overall verbiage it's easy to think he could be. explaining why you're NOT doing that works better than sarcastic excuses.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

not a case of feeling guilty.

wow - did i just quote and reply to you?

now, could he have NOT been meaning me? sure. but by context, common practice and overall verbiage it's easy to think he could be. explaining why you're NOT doing that works better than sarcastic excuses.

you did, as my reply to you was to directly to you, but your reply that Adam quoted was a general statement, and he made a general statement in return, feel me?

 

[iceberg]

you did, as my reply to you was to directly to you, but your reply that Adam quoted was a general statement, and he made a general statement in return, feel me?[/quote]

not even with hostiles hands.

like i said - yes it could have been a continued thought.

then say so when asked.

the "hey the glove doesn't fit!!!!" just screams guilty trying to be innocent. if you're not guilty, a rather strange path to take.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

not even with hostiles hands.

get your mind out of the gutter

 

[AdamJT13]

cause you qutoed my post and used "uber" in the same manner i did, just in the other direction.

it's common internet practice to "quote" someone you're replying to. it's also fair to say if you use unique words they used you're referencing them, their post, and in a world gone wild, replying to them.

Of course I was replying TO you. That doesn't mean I was talking ABOUT you. I was speaking in general terms about how the responses go in threads about these type of rankings. Someone would have a problem if Emmitt was ranked second all-time among running backs, and someone would think it was fair if Troy Aikman was ranked behind Archie Manning among quarterbacks. That's just the way it is.

 

[iceberg]

Of course I was replying TO you. That doesn't mean I was talking ABOUT you. I was speaking in general terms about how the responses go in threads about these type of rankings. Someone would have a problem if Emmitt was ranked second all-time among running backs, and someone would think it was fair if Troy Aikman was ranked behind Archie Manning among quarterbacks. That's just the way it is.

my bad then.

 

[tyke1doe]

6. John Elway.