Fox lists 100 best NFL players

MontrealCruiser_83*
09-06-2004, 08:01 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/story/2965178

here's 1-20:

1. LaDainian Tomlinson, RB, Chargers (19).
2. Peyton Manning, QB, Colts (10).
3. Ray Lewis, MLB, Ravens (4).
4. Randy Moss, WR, Vikings (15).
5. Brett Favre, QB, Packers (1).
6. Steve McNair, QB, Titans (58).
7. Michael Strahan, DE, Giants (5).
8. Jason Taylor, DE, Dolphins (7).
9. Tom Brady, QB, Patriots (NR).
10. Priest Holmes, RB, Chiefs (3).
11. Julian Peterson, OLB, 49ers (50).
12. Jonathan Ogden, OT, Ravens (16).
13. Marvin Harrison, WR, Colts (11).
14. Champ Bailey, CB, Broncos (36).
15. Richard Seymour, DL, Patriots (46).
16. Ahman Green, RB, Packers (39).
17. Simeon Rice, DE, Bucs (17).
18. Terrell Owens, WR, Eagles (2).
19. Torry Holt, WR, Rams (40).
20. Chris McAlister, CB, Ravens (54).
-------------------------------------------------------------

Shyte list imo... So many things wrong with these rankings. The number in brackets indicate last years rankings. I'll rant in more detail a bit later.

HeHateMeFrisbee
09-06-2004, 08:26 PM
BRUTAL! not ONE Lions player is ranked here, despite having Anquan Boldin at 71...WTF?

Dre Bly? Damien Woody? they should atleast be in this list.

MontrealCruiser_83*
09-06-2004, 08:36 PM
BRUTAL! not ONE Lions player is ranked here, despite having Anquan Boldin at 71...WTF?

Dre Bly? Damien Woody? they should atleast be in this list.
Shaun Rogers should of made it too...

Peterson has no business being in the top-20... Bulluck is the best OLB in the league and I doubt the questionable "physical" edge that Peterson may have on him warrants him the 11 spot.

guinness
09-06-2004, 08:53 PM
The strange thing about the list is how far players can jump between one year to the next. I would think a player's skills don't decline that rapidly, nor should a single MVP type season jack them up to near the top of the list.

HeHateMeFrisbee
09-06-2004, 08:59 PM
the list makes no sense. In some cases they claim that they based their rating on last year alone. Where in others, people that were not ranked the year before, suffered because of it. This list is a pile of steaming manure.

TVanek26*
09-06-2004, 09:13 PM
Marcus Trufant on the list but Nate Clements isn't?And Winfield on it over Clements :shakehead:

Big McLargehuge
09-06-2004, 09:25 PM
I fart in the general direction of that list

Kendrell Bell is the best Steeler, at 59...nevermind he's the fourth best Steeler, at best.

Hines Ward(71), Alan Faneca(75), and Casey Hampton(NR) are easily better, Joey Porter could be argued. I love Kendrell but Hines is one of, if not the best receivers in the game(the guy is as automatic of a catch as there is, runs routes better than anyone in the league, is a leader, is easily the best blocking receiver in the game...the only thing he isn't is a gigantic ass, unlike the 5 receivers in front of him sans Marvin Harrison...I mean seriously, name one thing Chad Johnson does better than Hines Ward besides be an attention *****?), Alan Faneca is regarded as the best guard in the entire game by most outlets, and Hampton is easily the best nose tackle in the game today...

ObeySteve
09-06-2004, 10:08 PM
This is supposed to be a current list, yet Brett freaking Favre is ranked as the 5th best player in football.

monster_bertuzzi
09-06-2004, 11:35 PM
Urlacher #36? Alexander #62? Horrid list.

ObeySteve
09-06-2004, 11:38 PM
Don't forget Lavar Arrington, possibly the best outside linebacker in the NFL, being at #81.

Fish on The Sand
09-07-2004, 02:41 AM
how the hell is priest holmes 10th?

JCD
09-07-2004, 07:49 AM
Don't forget Lavar Arrington, possibly the best outside linebacker in the NFL, being at #81.

Arrington is overrated IMO. Sure he makes the highlight plays, but he gives up a ton as well. Plus, he is not a reliable tackler (misses too many).

If he ever stops freelancing, he will be amazing. Until then, he will make amazing plays interspersed by periods of mediocrity.

The G Man
09-07-2004, 07:54 AM
7. Michael Strahan, DE, Giants (5). ?

Um, no. Overrated. Bigtime.

skidboot
09-07-2004, 09:14 AM
Hines Ward #71. lol.

and it says that he finds more ways to beat you than any other WR in the game.



He is the best All-Around WR in Football.

Dr Love
09-07-2004, 10:12 AM
Culpepper ahead of McNabb? I think even JCD would concede that isn't right. There are way too many 2nd year players ranked too high. Health issues aside, Dawkins shouldn't be behind Williams and Reed. How in the world is Terrell Owens #18 when he's only the 3rd best player on his team behind McNabb and Dawkins, and they're not ranked ahead of him? I don't like Brady as a top 10 player. Brady is certainly a great QB and what more could you ask for him to accomplish, but I would take out Strahan, Taylor, and Brady and bump up Harrison, McNabb, and then maybe either Culpepper, Jamal Lewis, or Odgen.

It's a terrible list, but then again what lists aren't?

High flyin' Habs*
09-07-2004, 10:28 AM
"1. LaDainian Tomlinson, RB, Chargers" No way is he #1!!!! Imo after the season he had Ray Lewis should be #1 on the list.

Dr Love
09-07-2004, 10:33 AM
"1. LaDainian Tomlinson, RB, Chargers" No way is he #1!!!! Imo after the season he had Ray Lewis should be #1 on the list.

Ray Lewis had another great season, no doubt. But LT was the first RB to get 1,000 yards (1,645 to be exact) and 100(!) catches in a season, and his 2,370 total yards was 2nd all time for a single season (60 yards behind Marshall Faulk's 1999 campaign). All this for the worst team in the league. Sorry, but LT is certainly worthy of the #1 spot.

And he didn't even make the Pro Bowl.

MontrealCruiser_83*
09-07-2004, 10:43 AM
Culpepper ahead of McNabb? I think even JCD would concede that isn't right. There are way too many 2nd year players ranked too high. Health issues aside, Dawkins shouldn't be behind Williams and Reed. How in the world is Terrell Owens #18 when he's only the 3rd best player on his team behind McNabb and Dawkins, and they're not ranked ahead of him? I don't like Brady as a top 10 player. Brady is certainly a great QB and what more could you ask for him to accomplish, but I would take out Strahan, Taylor, and Brady and bump up Harrison, McNabb, and then maybe either Culpepper, Jamal Lewis, or Odgen.

It's a terrible list, but then again what lists aren't? Culpepper is ahead of McNabb... IMO anyways.

The quarterback order should go:
Manning
McNair
Brady
Culpepper
McNabb

Dr Love
09-07-2004, 10:45 AM
Culpepper is ahead of McNabb... IMO anyways.

The quarterback order should go:
Manning
McNair
Brady
Culpepper
McNabb

Ask yourself this:

What has Culpepper done that McNabb hasn't? What has McNabb done that Culpepper hasn't? Who has had more talent around them? Culpepper is a hell of a QB, but he's not ahead of McNabb, not right now at least.

guinness
09-07-2004, 11:51 AM
Ask yourself this:

What has Culpepper done that McNabb hasn't? What has McNabb done that Culpepper hasn't? Who has had more talent around them? Culpepper is a hell of a QB, but he's not ahead of McNabb, not right now at least.

Both choked in the NFC Championship game, but McNabb has done it more often, while Culpepper couldn't lead the Vikes past the Cardinals.

JCD
09-07-2004, 11:54 AM
Ask yourself this:

What has Culpepper done that McNabb hasn't? What has McNabb done that Culpepper hasn't? Who has had more talent around them? Culpepper is a hell of a QB, but he's not ahead of McNabb, not right now at least.

I think it is more-or-less a saw off. Culpepper's shortcomings have been on his preparation and reads, areas where he has shown notable improvement.

What has one done that the other has not? McNabb has done nothing that Culpepper has not. Nothing. However, Culpepper has done several things that McNabb has not, all of them statistial. Both good (TDs, completion %, QB rating) and bad (TD-INT ratio, QB rating). Intangibly, I think McNabb commands more respect and has a firmer hold on his team than Culpepper (a better leader).

Who has had more talent? Depends on where you draw the line.

RB-
Culpepper had Smith for one year, the best RB either have had in their careers. After that though, it is more-or-less even. Bennett is fairly 1-dimensional, not much better than Westbrook. Staley is a better version of Moe Williams. Take away the 2000 season (when Culpepper had 40 TDs...), it is essentially even.

Receivers-
Moss wins. No doubt about that. He makes life easy on a QB. But look deeper. Culpepper had only one season with a quality second option (Carter). The other years, Moss was the only worthwhile option on the team. It was cast-offs like Bates, Alexander and Chamberlain. McNabb lacked the top-end guy like Moss, but after that it was lacking for both QBs. Still, Moss alone makes this a slam-dunk win for Culpepper. With Owens though, this gap has narrowed dramatically.

This is all the further most people look. That is only 8-9 players of 50 non-QB positions. All of which factor in.

O-Line-
McNabb wins. By a HUGE margin. Far more so than the Moss-advantage at WR was McNabb's advantage on the Line. Vikes line was absolutely and total garbage in 2001 and 2002. Culpepper's best lines (2000 and 2003) are on par with the worst McNabb has had to work with.

Defense-
You could detail these out position-by-position, but there really is no need. McNabb played for a team that could keep the score down. If McNabb led his team to 24+ points, a win was all but assured. Now, this is a 2-edge sword. It meant that McNabb wasn't racking up garbage-time stats, but it also meant that he didn't have to make a lot of plays or take chances. Culpepper played for a team in which no lead was safe. While this certainly helped him pad his TD and yardage numbers, but it also means he has to take a lot more chances (leading to TOs).

STs-
Eagles have had arguably the best STs in the league the past 4 years. Vikes have had arguably the worst. Eagles had a huge advantage in field position and are lightyears ahead at kicker. If McNabb drove his team down to the 35, 3 points were on the board. With that defense, they could win hang on to win doing only that. For the Vikes, extra points were an adventure. Vikes routinely went for it on 4th down because of a total lack of confidence in their kicker.

Coaching-
McNabb has had the same coach and same playbook for his entire career. Culpepper is on his 3rd different offense.

Overall, I think you have half-dozen on one, 6 on the other. I don't think either QB is clearly better or worse than the other. Honestly, I think that if the two were flipped they may have better success. Culpepper is a better and more accurate passer, might fit in better with the WCO. McNabb is a better leader and might have been better-able to keep the team functioning on the field while the locker-room was in turmoil (McNabb might have stood up to Carter's antics better).

As I see it, the top-5 QBs are virtually interchangable (Brady, Culpepper, McNabb, McNair, Manning). The differences between them are slight at best. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. No matter which one you pick, you have a great one.

JCD
09-07-2004, 11:58 AM
Both choked in the NFC Championship game, but McNabb has done it more often, while Culpepper couldn't lead the Vikes past the Cardinals.

Vikes choked, but on the list of who performed and who did not, Culpepper and the offense did their job. The defense (really, 2 DBs who have since been cut) and a hefty dose of luck caused that collapse. Second to the defense, blame Tice and O'Leary for their unfathomably conservative gameplan against weaklings (Vikes routinely played down to the level of their opponets, treating *****-cats like tigers.)

Vikes offense had a 2-TD lead when the last left the field.

Dr Love
09-07-2004, 01:15 PM
What has one done that the other has not? McNabb has done nothing that Culpepper has not. Nothing. However, Culpepper has done several things that McNabb has not, all of them statistial. Both good (TDs, completion %, QB rating) and bad (TD-INT ratio, QB rating). Intangibly, I think McNabb commands more respect and has a firmer hold on his team than Culpepper (a better leader).

Yes, Culpepper has the statistical advantage, but McNabb's resume is better. I wouldn't complain if I had either one, but given a choice, I'd take McNabb, who has taken his team to the playoffs more consistently.

Who has had more talent? Depends on where you draw the line.

RB-
Culpepper had Smith for one year, the best RB either have had in their careers. After that though, it is more-or-less even. Bennett is fairly 1-dimensional, not much better than Westbrook. Staley is a better version of Moe Williams. Take away the 2000 season (when Culpepper had 40 TDs...), it is essentially even.

I don't see it as even. Minnesota has had the better running game, in 2000 it was clearly Minnesota, in 2001 it was Philly, but in 2002 and 2003 it was Minnesota.

Receivers-
Moss wins. No doubt about that. He makes life easy on a QB. But look deeper. Culpepper had only one season with a quality second option (Carter). The other years, Moss was the only worthwhile option on the team. It was cast-offs like Bates, Alexander and Chamberlain. McNabb lacked the top-end guy like Moss, but after that it was lacking for both QBs. Still, Moss alone makes this a slam-dunk win for Culpepper. With Owens though, this gap has narrowed dramatically.

Absolutely. Owens will close the gap, but we're looking at the past.

This is all the further most people look. That is only 8-9 players of 50 non-QB positions. All of which factor in.

You'll find no disagreement with me. I was inferring WR/TE, RB, O-line, and to a lesser extent coaching, but if you want to discuss D and ST that is fine too. I'm always up for a good discussion.

O-Line-
McNabb wins. By a HUGE margin. Far more so than the Moss-advantage at WR was McNabb's advantage on the Line. Vikes line was absolutely and total garbage in 2001 and 2002. Culpepper's best lines (2000 and 2003) are on par with the worst McNabb has had to work with.

Agreed, McNabb has the clear advantage, but that may begin to slip away next year. But like I said earlier, we're looking at the past on this.

Defense-
You could detail these out position-by-position, but there really is no need. McNabb played for a team that could keep the score down. If McNabb led his team to 24+ points, a win was all but assured. Now, this is a 2-edge sword. It meant that McNabb wasn't racking up garbage-time stats, but it also meant that he didn't have to make a lot of plays or take chances. Culpepper played for a team in which no lead was safe. While this certainly helped him pad his TD and yardage numbers, but it also means he has to take a lot more chances (leading to TOs).

Good analysis in that it is a double edged sword. Blind assertion: Culpepper has had to play in many more shootouts. And clearly McNabb has had the advantage, as the Eagles have been a team that wins on D. However, like the O-line, that advantage may begin to slip away (IMO it is this season), but once again, we're talking about the past.

STs-
Eagles have had arguably the best STs in the league the past 4 years. Vikes have had arguably the worst. Eagles had a huge advantage in field position and are lightyears ahead at kicker. If McNabb drove his team down to the 35, 3 points were on the board. With that defense, they could win hang on to win doing only that. For the Vikes, extra points were an adventure. Vikes routinely went for it on 4th down because of a total lack of confidence in their kicker.

I got nothing.

Coaching-
McNabb has had the same coach and same playbook for his entire career. Culpepper is on his 3rd different offense.

I think this is a this and that issue as well. While McNabb has always played under Reid, Culpepper has always had an offense that ran. McNabb on the other hand, has played in an offense that would rather attempt pass the ball to a RB 3 yards regardless of outcome (incomplete/caught) than run it 3 yards. It puts pressure on McNabb that Culpepper doesn't have, but Culpepper has pressure that McNabb doesn't.

I think you're forgetting intangibles, for whatever worth you want to take them. Culpepper doesn't get his due IMO, and thus the 'media pressure' isn't there. McNabb is scrutinized on every play, at least locally. How much of that actually affects McNabb is of course unknown, I doubt it's anything more than small, but that's why they call it intangibles.

Overall, I think you have half-dozen on one, 6 on the other. I don't think either QB is clearly better or worse than the other. Honestly, I think that if the two were flipped they may have better success. Culpepper is a better and more accurate passer, might fit in better with the WCO. McNabb is a better leader and might have been better-able to keep the team functioning on the field while the locker-room was in turmoil (McNabb might have stood up to Carter's antics better).

As I see it, the top-5 QBs are virtually interchangable (Brady, Culpepper, McNabb, McNair, Manning). The differences between them are slight at best. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. No matter which one you pick, you have a great one.

Fair enough. If you want to call them interchangeable, I'm not going to really disagree. Each of the top 5 bring something different. My point is that if you're going to say that Brady is ahead of Player X because of his accomplishments, then I think that McNabb should be ahead of Culpepper, because as players they're close, and McNabb has attained more success than Culpepper.

JCD
09-07-2004, 02:24 PM
Yes, Culpepper has the statistical advantage, but McNabb's resume is better. I wouldn't complain if I had either one, but given a choice, I'd take McNabb, who has taken his team to the playoffs more consistently.

I think it is tough to blame Minnesota's failures on Culpepper of the offense. It was clearly the defense and STs that were the weak link. Culpepper has lead the offense to a top-5 or 10 placing every year.

I don't see it as even. Minnesota has had the better running game, in 2000 it was clearly Minnesota, in 2001 it was Philly, but in 2002 and 2003 it was Minnesota.

How talent is used and what their numbers show are very different. Minnesota ran more, so they had more stats. Dallas ran more than many teams, but Hambrick still sucks.

I think you're forgetting intangibles, for whatever worth you want to take them. Culpepper doesn't get his due IMO, and thus the 'media pressure' isn't there. McNabb is scrutinized on every play, at least locally. How much of that actually affects McNabb is of course unknown, I doubt it's anything more than small, but that's why they call it intangibles.

Culpepper gets a lot of heat too. Even had the same kind of yo-yos clammoring for the back-up to start (Feeley versus Bouman/Frerotte).

I do agree to some extent, but I think that also is the point. People have not chastised Culpepper often because he has not been a weak link or let his team down. Even in the lowest point of his career (the 41-0 blow-out), Culpepper was one of the only guys still busting his butt out there (Carter, Smith, Moss and a whole host of others had already quit). I can distinctly remember a play in the 2nd half, might have been the 1st possession, where Steussie was totally burned by the DE (can't remember who) and Robert Smith did nothing to pick him up. Culpepper through the ball down and started yelling, both of them just shrugged and walked away. He cared, they didn't. Though that also goes to show that Culpepper didn't command their respect either.

Fair enough. If you want to call them interchangeable, I'm not going to really disagree. Each of the top 5 bring something different. My point is that if you're going to say that Brady is ahead of Player X because of his accomplishments, then I think that McNabb should be ahead of Culpepper, because as players they're close, and McNabb has attained more success than Culpepper.

The way I see it, Culpepper has played for quality teams only years. In both, he led the NFC in Passer Rating. Once he took the team to the NFC Championship, the other was last year. McNabb has been on better teams for longer, but still has not gone any further or accomplished as much as an individual.

I think this is a good year to compare. Vikes defense is finally shored up to respectability (dare I say good?). Special teams still suck (Bennett the lone exception) though. Still, Vikes should be a dangerous team. Eagles have been a contender for some time now, and finally made some offensive investments. McNabb no longer has the 'no talent around him' as an excuse to perform (though the WCO is still not a good fit IMO...). For what it is worth, I think both will be fighting for homefield advantage.

Dr Love
09-07-2004, 02:47 PM
I think it is tough to blame Minnesota's failures on Culpepper of the offense. It was clearly the defense and STs that were the weak link. Culpepper has lead the offense to a top-5 or 10 placing every year.

I'm not. But the resume is the resume.

How talent is used and what their numbers show are very different. Minnesota ran more, so they had more stats. Dallas ran more than many teams, but Hambrick still sucks.

I'm not talking about pure numbers though. I'm talking about the RBs and their talent. Also that Philly doesn't run very much.

Culpepper gets a lot of heat too. Even had the same kind of yo-yos clammoring for the back-up to start (Feeley versus Bouman/Frerotte).

I do agree to some extent, but I think that also is the point. People have not chastised Culpepper often because he has not been a weak link or let his team down. Even in the lowest point of his career (the 41-0 blow-out), Culpepper was one of the only guys still busting his butt out there (Carter, Smith, Moss and a whole host of others had already quit). I can distinctly remember a play in the 2nd half, might have been the 1st possession, where Steussie was totally burned by the DE (can't remember who) and Robert Smith did nothing to pick him up. Culpepper through the ball down and started yelling, both of them just shrugged and walked away. He cared, they didn't. Though that also goes to show that Culpepper didn't command their respect either.[/quote]

I think one of those reasons, among many, was that he was only a 2nd year player and 1st year starter on a veteran team.

The way I see it, Culpepper has played for quality teams only years. In both, he led the NFC in Passer Rating. Once he took the team to the NFC Championship, the other was last year. McNabb has been on better teams for longer, but still has not gone any further or accomplished as much as an individual.

I see it differently, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means I'm right. :p: Seriously though, clearly we're of different opinions. To each his own.

I think this is a good year to compare. Vikes defense is finally shored up to respectability (dare I say good?). Special teams still suck (Bennett the lone exception) though. Still, Vikes should be a dangerous team. Eagles have been a contender for some time now, and finally made some offensive investments. McNabb no longer has the 'no talent around him' as an excuse to perform (though the WCO is still not a good fit IMO...). For what it is worth, I think both will be fighting for homefield advantage.

I think you should stick with 'respectability.' Maybe by the end of the season you can upgrade to 'the defense has played well.' With three new starters, one being a rookie, and a fourth in a position change, there's going to be some growing pains. The Vikes are certainly dangerous though, any team with that QB/WR duo and that running game is going to put up some serious points. Barring injury there should be no reason why they don't win the division. Green Bay hasn't gotten any better, Chicago stinks, and Detroit isn't good enough.

monster_bertuzzi
09-07-2004, 05:48 PM
Marcus Trufant on the list but Nate Clements isn't?And Winfield on it over Clements :shakehead:

Trufant is a great Corner back.

JCD
09-07-2004, 07:53 PM
I think you should stick with 'respectability.' Maybe by the end of the season you can upgrade to 'the defense has played well.' With three new starters, one being a rookie, and a fourth in a position change, there's going to be some growing pains. The Vikes are certainly dangerous though, any team with that QB/WR duo and that running game is going to put up some serious points. Barring injury there should be no reason why they don't win the division. Green Bay hasn't gotten any better, Chicago stinks, and Detroit isn't good enough.

I disagree about the Vikes (no surprise).

Front-4 looks good. Williams (BTW, he switched to DT full-time the last 6 or so games; played DT on passing downs otherwise and notched 8 of his 10.5 sacks as a DT) and Hovan are one of the better inside duos in the league. Both are UTs, but tenacious enough to work against the run. Mixon is a steady LDE. Udeze is the only new face (position or otherwise) on the line, all he has to do is upgrade on Wiley to be an improvement. Can't set the bar any lower than that.

Secondary looks great. Williams and Winfield are a pair of quality CBs. Neither is a shut-down type though. Chavous is an excellent safety and playmaker. Russell is still a work in progress, but has shown a great deal of upside for a QB in his 4th year as a safety. Depth is a concern here though.

LB is the biggest concern. Henderson was a stud in college and looked good in limited time. Still, he is a question mark. THomas is a great athlete who can play sideline to sideline, but is a rookie so will have issues. Claiborne is the only vet starting, he was outstanding before getting hurt. In all, this is their weakest unit by not a weak unit. More middle-of-the-road.

The talent is there to be a quality unit. Just a matter of it getting experience and Cottrell putting it to use.

TVanek26*
09-07-2004, 07:59 PM
Trufant is a great Corner back.

He isn't a great CB yet.There are only 3 elite CB's and I don't think Trufant is spelledMcCallister,Bailey or Woodson.

IMO,I think Nate Clements is a better Corner.Nate is a decent returner,can make plays happen,and is very young,though I wouldn't mind either.

MontrealCruiser_83*
09-07-2004, 08:15 PM
He isn't a great CB yet.There are only 3 elite CB's and I don't think Trufant is spelledMcCallister,Bailey or Woodson.

IMO,I think Nate Clements is a better Corner.Nate is a decent returner,can make plays happen,and is very young,though I wouldn't mind either.
Woodson isn't what he used to be.

Out of the young guns, Newman is probably the best but Trufant is still very good.

TVanek26*
09-07-2004, 08:24 PM
Newman isn't a young gun.Nate Clements is 24 and has had 3 years of experience compared to Newman's 1 (and Newman is 26,and will be 27 at the start of next season.Certainly not old but he isn't really young)Clements is only 1 year older then Trufant,so if your talking about young,good CB's,Clements is probably number 1.

MontrealCruiser_83*
09-07-2004, 08:35 PM
Newman isn't a young gun.Nate Clements is 24 and has had 3 years of experience compared to Newman's 1 (and Newman is 26,and will be 27 at the start of next season.Certainly not old but he isn't really young)Clements is only 1 year older then Trufant,so if your talking about young,good CB's,Clements is probably number 1.
His age has always bothered me for some reason but the fact that he played his first pro season the way he did makes me kind of forget about that. He was lights out last season, as a rookie, and logically he will keep improving whereas Clements is already considered a veteran.

It's not as much about age as it is about experience...

Clements should be on the list though... he's better then Trufant.

loveshack2
09-07-2004, 08:37 PM
He isn't a great CB yet.There are only 3 elite CB's and I don't think Trufant is spelledMcCallister,Bailey or Woodson.

So where do you put Ty Law on that list?

TVanek26*
09-07-2004, 08:42 PM
He won't be as great now that they have the Ty Law rule in effect.He's still a top 10,probably top 5 corner,but he won't be able to Chuck and Grab anymore.

MontrealCruiser_83*
09-07-2004, 09:39 PM
He isn't a great CB yet.There are only 3 elite CB's and I don't think Trufant is spelledMcCallister,Bailey or Woodson.

There's a difference between great and elite...