Mailbag: Disputing top-10 all-time greats
Listing the top 10 NFL players of all time stirred emotions among you readers. Here's a look at some thoughts, particularly on my decision to exclude Walter Payton.
(Note: There were so many letters about Payton, I'm not going to respond to all of them. Rather, I've printed many of them and responded once at the end.)
Regarding Walter
Mr. Cole, I respect your opinion and will fight to the death to protect it, but not having Walter Payton in your Top 10 stuns me. I played the game at D-1 level, continue to coach the game and like to think I know a bit about all the players you mentioned. They were all superstars but somehow, Walter has to be in that group. I knew him and admired him but my reason for believing he should be in the top 10 is having seen him play AND train. I generally agree with your assessments of players and teams BUT not this time.
James Bryant
Friedrichshafen, Germany
How can you exclude walter payton from this list? sweetness was the quintessential running back. he played for a terrible team, brown's (jim) teams were stacked. payton was 5'9" 205, brown 6'3" 235 (bigger than most defenders) that's like a pro on a college team. watch film and you will see, payton never took a play off, arguably the best blocking back (fullbacks not included) of all time. lastly, the ultimate leader. even when that idiot ditka was given the coaching job, walter still did what was asked of him and never complained once. rice may be the most productive and explosive player, but as far as all-around athlete there was none greater than sir walter.
Paul
Springfield, Mo.
Mr. Cole, I enjoyed reading your article but was disappointed that I didn't see Walter Payton on your list. Besides being a prolific running back on some very poor teams, he epitomized what a football player should be, a Team Player. Some of the teams he played on were so poor he played quarterback, punter, was one of the fiercest blockers I have ever seen in the back field, (helped Roland Harper gain 1,000 yards), and I am sure sold some hot dogs for the Bears. Of course comparing football players and quite frankly trying to rank "greats" always leaves plenty of room for disagreement, but I would be interested to know where you would rank him?
Joe Bennett
I can't believe that Walter Payton is not on the list for greatest NFL player of all time. It just boggles my mind. No telling how many yards he would have gained if he had had a decent o-line for most of his career. Defenses KNEW he was the whole offense and they still couldn't stop him. Besides that, he was more than a running back … he was a complete ballplayer … he could run, catch, block and run you over. Terrible omission … and by an ex-Bear, too.
John Dailey
Fort Smith, Ark.
The Greatest NFL Player is Walter Payton. Rice was a great wide receiver, but Payton #34, he did it all! QB, WR, punter, running back , etc. … anything for his team. Look at his stats. He was all about the team. In the Super Bowl he was the main target so his team could win (46-10). He had the Pats coach thinking if "We stop Payton, we can win." Lawrence Taylor ? COME ON!! HE was a good player? All I can remember about him is when he broke Joe Theismann's leg, and ended his career . He was probably on drugs that day too. You didn't even mention Walter Payton "Sweetness." Let's fix this list. If you doubt me, ask the players on the list.
Frank Palazzolo
Oracle, Ariz.
Walter Payton. Have you heard of him??? Jerry Rice is good, but he isn't the toenail of Walter Payton's accomplishments. Walter Payton's absence on your list dismisses anything you have said.
Jack Rudzinski
Tampa, Fla.
I wont argue that rice may be the greatest, MAY be, but to leave walter payton off the list is a disgrace, for my money he is THE greatest football player to wear a uniform, he rarely lost yards, like barry sanders, he was a better receiver than jim brown, he BLOCKED better than any tailback in the game. (something jim brown would NEVER do) and he played EVERY game with heart and 110%, something jim brown NEVER did. Jim brown may have been the most talented rb to play. MAY HAVE, but the BEST to ever play was WALTER PAYTON. HE NEVER EVER QUIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rob Cochenour
Lakeside, Ariz.
I got the point after the first four exclamation marks. As the rest, I will acknowledge that Payton was the toughest player to exclude from the top 10. The problem I have with Payton is that, while he had a better career than Barry Sanders, O.J. Simpson, Eric Dickerson and Emmitt Smith, I can't say that he was far and away better than any of them. I can just as easily make an argument for Sanders to be in the top 10. I also think that people don't understand how great guys like Anthony Munoz and Joe Greene were because their careers were far less romanticized. Payton's career is 95 percent greatness with about 5 percent myth-making. In short, leaving him off was brutally tough, but I feel good about my list.
Where's Barry?
I was just curious how you felt about Barry Sanders. I believe he is arguably the best running to ever play. He did more with a lot less than most running backs. He only played 10 years and had over 15,000 yards. One more year he would've broke the all-time rushing record. He could've had at least 3-4 more strong years and had an outside shot at 20,000 yards which would never have been eclipsed. I was just curious how far down you would've ranked him as an all-time great player.
Eddie
California
Good question. Sanders is the greatest big-play runner in the history of the NFL. He was freakish in his ability. He probably would ranked somewhere between 13 and 18. In many significant ways, he was superior to Payton. However, Sanders was a terrible short-yardage back. Really bad. I have a hard time putting him higher when one of the essential jobs of a running back is to get tough yards.
How does Barry Sanders, arguably the best running back of all-time, the man who quit in his prime, did what he did for the lowly Detroit Lions not make the top 10? He was considered too small to be great and he proved everyone wrong. It's laughable that he's not in the top 5 to be honest, nevertheless top 10.
Andrew
As I said, Sanders was great, just not great enough.
Back in the day
Jerry Rice has those stats because he played in an era that allowed WRs to run free. At one time WRs had to EARN their way off the line of scrimmage. QBs throw a ball that has been slimmed down a bit and is made of a more grip-able material. Furthermore, I, like many others, choose not to pay to watch a bunch of overpaid clowns. High school and college is where you see unpolluted football before the players get spoiled.
Ed Green
Sylvania, Ohio
Hmm, college players are "unpolluted?" I guess you haven't been paying attention to the news coming out of USC, South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia these days.
I'm disappointed Red Grange wasn't mentioned. He was the NFL's original superstar who drew huge crowds of people and legitimized football on the professional level. The guys you listed probably would've done other things with their lives had it not been for Grange.
Michael
York, Pa.
I didn't think Grange was that good on the cutback on the stretch play.
How about the only player to lead the league in tackles, interceptions, rushing yards, passing yards, touchdowns, scoring and yards per punt? College and pro championships. Did we forget the great Sammy Baugh? The whole list is off.
Randy Cook
Monroe, La.
As important as Baugh was, I think it's hard to compare what he did with what has been done in the modern era of the game.
Jim Brown love
Mr. Cole, how could you "pass" on Jim Brown as the greatest player ever? You fail to mention the gaping chasm between Brown's stats when he retired (at THE TOP OF HIS GAME) to those closest to him when he played. The hash marks were farther apart, leaving it easier to load defensive formations to the "wider side" of the field. Brown NEVER missed a game due to injury; heck, you can't even find him ever lying on the ground for as long as a half minute in his entire career (during which he played far fewer games than Rice … do the math and figure out how many touchdowns Brown would have scored if he played the number of games which Rice played.). Also, look into how many fumbles Brown lost in his ENTIRE CAREER. Defenses keyed on him, for Frank Ryan was no great passer, and the Browns had no grand passing scheme in place, far from the "West Coast offense" which benefitted Rice. Everyone in the stadium knew Brown was going to carry around or over 30 times a game. He was more than big (6'2", 235 lbs.) strong and fast enough to play in ANY era, and to be the greatest in ANY era: review his times in the 100-yard dash … you'll also find he was one of the greatest lacrosse players of his or any other era, while in college football, he was chosen All-American on both sides of the ball (linebacker being the defensive position) at Syracuse (still to this day one of the elite lacrosse programs in the country). He quit to pursue acting, when Art Model gave him the ultimatum of returning to Cleveland (thus leaving the set of "The Dirty Dozen") or being cut from the team. Brown chose, of course, acting. At the time of his retirement, it seemed unlikely that anyone would break Brown's career rushing mark (next was Chuck Taylor of the Packers) but no one was able to foresee how much the season would lengthen nor the rise of artificial turf, which is a clear advantage for the ball carrier. Defenders pounded him in "stack ups" in a way which would draw countless "unnecessary roughness" or "unsportsmanlike conduct" infractions in today's game … which are now geared towards creating more offensive and ostensibly to "protect" players from themselves. Lest it is not obvious enough yet, a wide receiver playing in a position such as Rice did had far more opportunities to score touchdowns. Brown made his own opportunities, usually creating the field positions which enabled him to score the touchdowns he did score. Thanks for your time, especially if you made it this far!
Leonard Carbone
I didn't think that making Jim Brown the second-best player of all time was such a problem.
Jason – As usual, your hand types before your brain has had time to think (no disrespect meant). Jim Brown was the greatest of all time for the simple reason that his stats were compiled in less than half the seasons that it took Jerry Rice to accumulate his. Go back to the films of Jim Brown playing and note that no one could stop the man during his playing days (Sam Huff only slowed him down). Effectively, he just ran over or through the other players. When Jim Brown played it was akin to a man playing against a boy. Can the same be said of Jerry Rice during his playing days?
Herman Mann
If you had read what I wrote, I noted that when Brown played, he was physically dominant. No question. He was as big as many of the linemen of his time. He was amazing. He is second best. No harm in that.
Rice perspective
One of the reasons Jerry Rice is "Number One" is because he had two of the all-time best QBs (one named "Young" whom you left off your list) throwing to him. Had he played on a team with much less skilled QBs, I doubt his numbers would be so stellar. One year Montana was 1st in QB efficiency, Young was 2nd, and second backup Matt Cavanaugh was 3rd. Does the QB make the receiver or vice versa, or a little bit of both?
Tom Merrigan
Austin, Texas
This is the chicken meeting the egg. That said, I watched Rice play most of his career and give him credit for being truly amazing. Yes, he had the good fortune to play with Joe Montana and Steve Young, but lots of other guys played with them and didn't put up those kinds of numbers. Also, I don't recall the season you're talking about with Montana, Young and Cavanaugh, but I'm sure they didn't all qualify. One, if not two, of them had to have thrown very few passes.
No 'Boys on board
You make some great points on this list, but really you have no Dallas Cowboys represented on this list of the top 10? No Roger Staubach? No Randy White? None of the "triplets" or Cowboys Team of the 90's? Come on now!
Ed Ohrns
Phoenix
Sorry, Ed, I don't see any of them being worthy of the top 10. All great players, but not quite in the top 10.
Rant and rave
"What Rice did to receiving numbers is what Babe Ruth did to home run numbers." Those are your words. Then why didn't you ever mention Babe Ruth as greatest ever in baseball. Rings don't make you greatest ever either. Dan Marino should have a ring on all fingers and toes. Rice couldn't block and he never played special teams. Your words again … "Rice was an overachiever with a tireless work ethic. At practice, Rice finished every catch he made by running all the way to the end zone." You are a liar about running all the way to end zone every time. Check the film. It's false reporting. Your words again … "Rice showed the NFL that the passing game was more than a phase and that wide receivers weren't simply occasional contributors, Rice changed the game." So funny. This is a distinction that belongs to Bullet Bob Hayes. He revolutionized the wide receiver position. 99% of your colleagues will agree with that. GREATEST EVER. Be careful. Yet I'm surprised you didn't pick Drew Brees(notes).
Donald Stubbs
Tatum, S.C.
Come on, I'm not writing a baseball column, but the Ruth reference is pretty obvious if you understand sports history. As for Rice and blocking, he was actually one of the best of all time. As for Bob Hayes, he was great, but he changed the deep passing game, not the overall emphasis of the passing game and how receivers were viewed.
Your top ten football players of all time = bull. For one, how many rings did Bruce Smith win? ZERO. Go cover soccer, you're NOT a football expert!
Mike King
Stockton, Calif.
Wow. That's some deep, strong criticism.
Bruce Smith ahead of Lawrence Taylor? Come on. You spent the top half of the column making the case that part of Rice's greatness was rooted in him changing his position, and the game as a result. With his versatility (pass rushing, dropping into coverage, his pursuit of the ball all over the field) Taylor completely transformed the linebacker position from one in which players had a very limited role. LT's versatility allowed him to routinely dominate games defensively despite the best efforts of opposing offensive coordinators. Did Smith do that? Smith was a great pass rusher, but that's all. If you recall Super Bowl XX, the Giants aimed their power rushing game very much at Smith, who was utterly dominated by left tackle Jumbo Elliott. That was another point you made in your case for Rice – at his best in big games. I don't recall Smith making much of an impact in his four Super Bowls. Taylor, on the other hand, was a force in both of his. Thanks for reading, just don't see how you can overlook Taylor's impact this badly.
Tom
I thought Bruce Smith was more consistent than L.T. over the course of his career. That said, we're talking about the No. 6 vs. the No. 7 guys on my list.
Lott, Monk and others
When you ask someone a question like that, it is tough to answer, simply because there were lots of good players, through out the history of Football. In the receiver department, you must never overlook Art Monk, never. He wasn't flashy, but he knew how to get the job done, and he did it consistently, through out his playing days. Art Monk, and Jerry Rice would be in a class of their on. Thank you.
Sherman Carliles
Cupertino, Calif.
Sorry, I'm not buying Monk as being quite this good. He's a Hall of Famer, but I wouldn't put him in a list of the top-50 players of all time.
You left John Elway off your list. He should be mentioned. 1) Most wins for QB. 2) Started 5 Super Bowls (almost 6). 3) The NFL named a Draft after him. 4) Bigger, stronger, faster than the QB's you listed. 5) Superior stats. 6) Retired as a 2-time Super Bowl Champion MVP. 7) Was never traded, like the QB's you mentioned. 8) Two scorned cities lost their teams (Baltimore Cleveland) because of Elway. 9) Absolute prototype QB, he could win on ANY team. Not so with fragile Montana, who is a system QB. 10) Excitement / Drama: "The Drive", "The Drive 2", "The Fumble", Super Bowl 32 his other 40+ come-from-behind victories.
Jeffrey
Paso Robles, Calif.
Given that I went to college with Elway and that he's my personal favorite, it wasn't easy for me to leave him off. That said, he just doesn't quite make it. Also, Elway was traded at the very start of his career after initially being drafted by the Baltimore Colts.
I enjoyed your article on Jerry Rice and NFL's top 10 players. You forgot to include Ronnie Lott on that list. Having 3 D-linemen on your list is just too many. I would have replaced Greene with Lott.
Osman
San Ramon, Calif.
Ronnie Lott was truly great. But again, he's not close to the top 10 in my opinion.
I was wondering where you would rank Steve Largent on the all-time receivers list? He held most of the records until Rice passed him but is rarely heralded as a great receiver. The fact that he played on one team and a non-contender with mediocre QBs for his career shows the true talent he was. I may never say he was better than Rice but I think he needs to be considered one of the best.
Mark
Largent was great and probably a little better than Monk, but only in a marginal way. He probably doesn't make my top 50, either, although it might be close.
You may not like him once he got off the field. O. J. simpson has to be in your top ten if not your top 5. The guy ran for 2,000 yards in 14 games. No one else has come close to it. And he did it when he was the only weapon other than J.D. Hill. Give the devil his football due.
Harold Bates Sr.
Memphis, Tenn.
I believe that Simpson is one of the top 10 running backs of all time, maybe top five. But top 10 regardless of position? No. He was really a one-dimensional running back, and the peak of his career was kind of short.
So what happened to John Hannah, it seems as if your list is heavily geared toward defensive players, and those at the "skilled" positions.
Bill Abbott
Hannah is probably the greatest guard to ever play the game, although Steve Hutchinson(notes) is gaining on him. However, it's hard to justify putting a guard in the top 10. It's not a premium position.
Some agreement
You're "on point" with most of your selections. Butkus was phenomenal, but I think there were/are several other players who could have supplanted him on your list. For the most part though, I think you are probably correct with your assessment.
Aaron
Lafayette, Ind.
Thanks. Butkus is a tough call, particularly because Ray Lewis(notes) might have supplanted him as the best inside linebacker ever. However, Butkus was an original.
Wow! I've never read somebody's list about anything in which I completely agree. Nice job.
Tom Reppert
It's what they say about blind squirrels and acorns. Once in a while …
No question here, but just wanted to say that I 150% agree. Jerry was the greatest and remains the GREATEST in my book!
Lorraine
Tulare, Calif.
It's nice to have relatives.
Well jason, dolphin fan here and not only can emmitt smith run and catch the ball and score touchdowns! he can give one emotional speech, still wiping my eyes!
Tracy Croll
Breinigsville, Pa.
His speech was pretty darn impressive.
Mr. Cole, I just read your article "Reasons why Rice is NFL's Greatest Player." I liked the points you made to support your view of Rice. My question is, Why do those same points not apply to Emmitt Smith? I'm not saying that Emmitt Smith is the greatest player of all time. But why is he not considered the greatest running back of all time? Numbers don't lie (All-time leader in carries, rushing TDs, and rushing yards) … He's got rings … and he got the most from his talent. (Often called too small and too slow to play in the NFL, he maximized his talent and became the all time leading rusher.) Yet with all these accomplishments, he is never put in the same category as Jim Brown or Walter Payton. Men whose records he eclipsed.
Jeff
It's a fair question. All I can tell you is that it's an eye-of-the-beholder issue. I saw Payton. I saw Smith. I have seen the highlights and looked at the stats for Brown. Smith is just behind them. It's sort of like Hank Aaron when you talk about the greatest baseball players of all time. Mantle, Ruth and Mays dominate the conversation, even though Aaron broke all their marks.
