Top 100 Players of 2012

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by captveg:
Peyton Manning being on this list of best 2011 players is idiotic on untold levels.

Here's a question I have: Why do they call it the "Top 100 players of 2012" instead of 2011? We haven't played the 2012 season yet.

Because the list is a "guess" of who will have (not had) the best performances next year. That is how you can get a guy like Peyton on the list at 50.

This doesn't make any sense either Bc Vilma made the list and is suspended for the whole year next year and made the list

Yeah, and it doesn't make sense to guess. It makes a lot more sense to rank the top 100 players of the previous season. They don't send players to the Pro Bowl based on how they expect them to perform in the next season.

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by captveg:
Peyton Manning being on this list of best 2011 players is idiotic on untold levels.

Here's a question I have: Why do they call it the "Top 100 players of 2012" instead of 2011? We haven't played the 2012 season yet.

Because the list is a "guess" of who will have (not had) the best performances next year. That is how you can get a guy like Peyton on the list at 50.

This doesn't make any sense either Bc Vilma made the list and is suspended for the whole year next year and made the list

Yeah, and it doesn't make sense to guess. It makes a lot more sense to rank the top 100 players of the previous season. They don't send players to the Pro Bowl based on how they expect them to perform in the next season.

sounds like this is just another way to mindlessly build up hype for the upcoming season.

Originally posted by 49erfeeeever808:
sounds like this is just another way to mindlessly build up hype for the upcoming season.

So the players voted and that's how the list is created. It's my understanding that each player was allowed to vote for 20 other players. I would love to see what that voting form looks like because I think that would tell us a lot.

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by 49erfeeeever808:
sounds like this is just another way to mindlessly build up hype for the upcoming season.

So the players voted and that's how the list is created. It's my understanding that each player was allowed to vote for 20 other players. I would love to see what that voting form looks like because I think that would tell us a lot.

i starting doubting what this list really meant once tebow made the list.

good point thought, yeah the players input something. we don't know what the formula looks like though.

I don't think there's really a specific formula to this. Its just the top 100 players in the NFL
Manning didn't play last year but he's healthy(ish) and will play this year. I don't think its wrong to say he's one of the top 100 players. Chris Johnson didn't have a great year but is still one of the top players. He'll rebound this year. Some worthy players were left off but whatever. If they keep playing well there's still many years to go.

Originally posted by ghostrider:
First of all, I was simply showing that continuous movement doesn't equate to interesting. However, it can strongly correlate to it. A game of who could sit without blinking the longest obviously isn't going to be interesting. You were also the first to bring up continuous movement as a criteria, not me.

Secondly, competitive doesn't always equate to interesting to watch. See my examples of bowling, golf, poker, curling. All of which could be very competitive and yet still uninteresting to watch. Add to it: equestrian, arm wrestling, strong man, iditarod, track and field, freestyle swimming, most mainstream Olympic events, and many others.

Thirdly, football and baseball are not American born sports. How about roller derby or disc golf? I believe those are "American born". What's your interest level in those?

Fourthly, what are your criteria for a sport being included into the "must like" list in order to be considered a "die hard" sports fan?

Originally posted by ghostrider:
Painted yourself in a corner, eh?

No, I just don't fraternize with grown men who think bowling is more of a sport than baseball

Originally posted by DirtyP:

Originally posted by ghostrider:
First of all, I was simply showing that continuous movement doesn't equate to interesting. However, it can strongly correlate to it. A game of who could sit without blinking the longest obviously isn't going to be interesting. You were also the first to bring up continuous movement as a criteria, not me.

Secondly, competitive doesn't always equate to interesting to watch. See my examples of bowling, golf, poker, curling. All of which could be very competitive and yet still uninteresting to watch. Add to it: equestrian, arm wrestling, strong man, iditarod, track and field, freestyle swimming, most mainstream Olympic events, and many others.

Thirdly, football and baseball are not American born sports. How about roller derby or disc golf? I believe those are "American born". What's your interest level in those?

Fourthly, what are your criteria for a sport being included into the "must like" list in order to be considered a "die hard" sports fan?

Originally posted by ghostrider:
Painted yourself in a corner, eh?

No, I just don't fraternize with grown men who think bowling is more of a sport than baseball

lol, well if you read my posts again, you'll find that I made no such claim.

Take the journey with me...

The argument is that watching baseball is as uninteresting as watching bowling. That doesn't mean that either isn't fun to actually play or doesn't require skill or that it is or isn't a "sport" (although, I would probably call neither a sport, but I understand the gray area so YMMV). Therefore, the analogy is: You can love bowling but hate to watch it => You can love baseball but hate to watch it.

If you can't understand that much, then re-explaining why your definition of "die hard sports fan" is flawed is a pretty useless exercise.

Originally posted by 49erfeeeever808:

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by captveg:
Peyton Manning being on this list of best 2011 players is idiotic on untold levels.

Here's a question I have: Why do they call it the "Top 100 players of 2012" instead of 2011? We haven't played the 2012 season yet.

Because the list is a "guess" of who will have (not had) the best performances next year. That is how you can get a guy like Peyton on the list at 50.

This doesn't make any sense either Bc Vilma made the list and is suspended for the whole year next year and made the list

Yeah, and it doesn't make sense to guess. It makes a lot more sense to rank the top 100 players of the previous season. They don't send players to the Pro Bowl based on how they expect them to perform in the next season.

sounds like this is just another way to mindlessly build up hype for the upcoming season.

Yeah, sounds like a PR move to me.....LOL....wait, its the NFL. Its a business. Finally, its all making sense.

Originally posted by ghostrider:
If Aldon doesn't make it, wow. There's no way that Von Miller can be 52 and Aldon be off the list. If Von was somewhere between 95-100, maybe one could make the argument—maybe—but 52 and Aldon off the list? That wouldn't make sense at all. There's no way that the separation between them is 52+ players. And maybe I'm a homer, but I'd take Smith over Miller and I think most of the league would too.

Well they're really very different players. Aldon played only part-time and was only in on pass-rushing downs. Miller played every down and pretty solid in all aspects of playing outside LB. He showed that he could be a dominate pass-rusher, as well as someone who can cover and play the run.

Originally posted by Druckenmiller14:

Originally posted by ghostrider:
If Aldon doesn't make it, wow. There's no way that Von Miller can be 52 and Aldon be off the list. If Von was somewhere between 95-100, maybe one could make the argument—maybe—but 52 and Aldon off the list? That wouldn't make sense at all. There's no way that the separation between them is 52+ players. And maybe I'm a homer, but I'd take Smith over Miller and I think most of the league would too.

Well they're really very different players. Aldon played only part-time and was only in on pass-rushing downs. Miller played every down and pretty solid in all aspects of playing outside LB. He showed that he could be a dominate pass-rusher, as well as someone who can cover and play the run.

I get that, but Aldon is clearly a game changer. I think it's arguable that he's at least as much a game changer (if not more) than Miller. I just don't see the difference being 52+ players, but they didn't give me a vote

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by Druckenmiller14:

Originally posted by ghostrider:
If Aldon doesn't make it, wow. There's no way that Von Miller can be 52 and Aldon be off the list. If Von was somewhere between 95-100, maybe one could make the argument—maybe—but 52 and Aldon off the list? That wouldn't make sense at all. There's no way that the separation between them is 52+ players. And maybe I'm a homer, but I'd take Smith over Miller and I think most of the league would too.

Well they're really very different players. Aldon played only part-time and was only in on pass-rushing downs. Miller played every down and pretty solid in all aspects of playing outside LB. He showed that he could be a dominate pass-rusher, as well as someone who can cover and play the run.

I get that, but Aldon is clearly a game changer. I think it's arguable that he's at least as much a game changer (if not more) than Miller. I just don't see the difference being 52+ players, but they didn't give me a vote

Aldon was getting lit up on a good amount of plays in the NYG vs SF playoff game.

http://www.nfl.com/player/vontaleach/2505777/profile Uhh vontae leach #45???? What is he a special teams maniac?

Originally posted by SundayTicket:

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by Druckenmiller14:

Originally posted by ghostrider:
If Aldon doesn't make it, wow. There's no way that Von Miller can be 52 and Aldon be off the list. If Von was somewhere between 95-100, maybe one could make the argument—maybe—but 52 and Aldon off the list? That wouldn't make sense at all. There's no way that the separation between them is 52+ players. And maybe I'm a homer, but I'd take Smith over Miller and I think most of the league would too.

Well they're really very different players. Aldon played only part-time and was only in on pass-rushing downs. Miller played every down and pretty solid in all aspects of playing outside LB. He showed that he could be a dominate pass-rusher, as well as someone who can cover and play the run.

I get that, but Aldon is clearly a game changer. I think it's arguable that he's at least as much a game changer (if not more) than Miller. I just don't see the difference being 52+ players, but they didn't give me a vote

Aldon was getting lit up on a good amount of plays in the NYG vs SF playoff game.

Aaron Rodgers didn't play well against the Giants either. It happens.

When does the final 1-10 happen or are they going to drag it out with 5-10, 2-4 and then 1?

Originally posted by ghostrider:
I get that, but Aldon is clearly a game changer. I think it's arguable that he's at least as much a game changer (if not more) than Miller. I just don't see the difference being 52+ players, but they didn't give me a vote

I get that, but everyone on that list is a "game-changer." And you're really looking hard through your red and gold colored glasses if you think hes a better overall player at this point in his career than Von Miller.