The most overrated player in NFL history

Originally posted by darockzillahitman:
I feel kind of bad saying this, because he seems like a really nice guy, but the most overrated player in NFL history, bar none, is:

Franco Harris.

I don't know how many people here have ever really watched old Steelers games (why would you?), but I binge watched them on Youtube several months ago.

Let me just say this: Franco Harris is not a Top 500 running back in NFL history. Not in terms of performance on the field, he wasn't. I am not even kidding: Derek Loville was a better running back than Franco Harris.

You think I'm being hyperbolic? I'm not.

Let me put it this way: Every single person on this forum could tackle Franco Harris when he played. Every single able-bodied person on planet earth could tackle Franco Harris. That is not an exaggeration.

You see, here's how a Franco Harris carry went: Bradshaw hands it off to Franco Harris. He hits the designed hole. The very first guy to touch him was the guy who tackled him. As soon as he was so much as clipped by a nickel or dime back, he went down. He got what was there and nothing more.

Newspapers at the time referred to it as, "unlike Jim Brown, he goes out of bounds." No, he wasn't going out of bounds. He was just going down to the very first guy who got him every single time.

The late Dave Duerson once described hitting Harris as, "he was soft. Like a sponge."

Now maybe you're going to try to object, because, "but but but but, he gained a lot of rushing yards! And rings! He got 4 rings! He must have done something well to keep starting, like...vision! Yeah, vision!"

Yeah, no. Hitting a designed hole is not "vision." Vision is hitting a cutback lane. It's seeing the big picture and making moves accordingly.

Harris was a big robot. See designed hole, go to designed hole...touched, robot shut down.

Harris was the worst running back on the Steelers every year he played for them. The best running back the Steelers had in the 70s was Sidney Thornton. He actually had some decent power. Rocky Bleier was also basically a hack, but even he was better than Harris, and occasionally would fight for some extra yardage/break a tackle.

Was there anything Harris did well besides do what the coaches asked of him as far as hitting the designed hole? Well, for a guy his size, he had decent straight line speed. But I'm talking about for a guy his size...in the 1970s. That's why he was drafted - he was a 230 pound guy who ran in the 4.6-4.7 range. He wasn't the feature back at Penn State...Lydell Mitchell was.

"But if he's so bad, how could he gain so many yards? Are you saying the Steelers' offensive line was the GOAT line?"

Here's something you might not be aware of - and if you're ever trash talking with some Steelers fans who suck off their 70s teams, be sure to bring it up: The Steelers' offensive linemen were all juicing. They were roid freaks. It was an open secret that was exposed by Steve Courson years later.

Their offensive linemen dominated the off-season NFL weight lifting competitions. Mike Webster was the "strongest man in the NFL."

So in terms of effectiveness, they were certainly way up there. Why wouldn't they be? They had a huge physical edge.

It's funny...if you were to poll the average fan and ask them who was overrated from the 70s Steelers, they would say Terry Bradshaw...but he has been called overrated so much that he's actually now underrated. Bradshaw was basically the equal to Elway: Mobility, strong arm, could make all the throws...played in some bad offensive systems that made his numbers look worse.

My thoughts on some of their others:

Lambert: Lives up to the hype for the most part. Funny enough, fans were saying he was overrated and Ham was underrated. I don't see it. Ham after 1974 or so didn't do much for me. Lambert was everywhere. Their scheme had he and Ham getting deep pass drops, and he was on basically everything sideline-to-sideline or straight ahead. Never seemed to miss a tackle.

Greene: Great interior pass rusher, especially in his peak years. Not exceptional vs. the run at the point. Not as "mean" as they say, unless they mean he'll punch Broncos' offensive linemen in the gut and not get ejected. Then yeah, he was mean in that way.

Greenwood: Good pass rusher.

Ham: More impressive in 1974 and prior. More of a role player later on. Pass to the flat and he'd be on it, fast. Huge roles in coverage in their scheme.

Blount: He's lucky he played in the era he did. Not a great actual cover guy. Squatted on routes against primitive passing attacks and collected the INTs. Good run support player, though.

Donnie Shell: Don't get the hype.

Stallworth: Surprised me with his RAC ability. Could break tackles after the catch. Good on the leaping grab as well. Primitive routes.

Swann: Tremendous leaping ability. Pretty special hands, considering nobody wore gloves then. Slow as molasses. I doubt he could crack 4.75. Yeah, he caught deep balls like basically every other receiver of that era, but he did it because the corners of the time were almost entirely 6'0"+ plodders. Teams of that era used almost exclusively bigger corners because of the different rules (the "Mel Blount rule" was instituted in 1977), thinking the bigger corners could maul the receivers they faced. Ugly, primitive routes. Also good after the catch. Watching he and Stallworth, you realize how much we overrate our own receivers' RAC ability. RAC was expected of a WR before pussies like Marvin Harrison and Torry Holt decided the catch was the end of the story because they didn't want to injure their vaginas.

I think 1974 was their best defense, which was Lambert's rookie year. I don't think he ever played better than that, despite not getting the Pro Bowl/all pro honors that year (he did win DROY though).

Very well written and appreciate the time, effort and thoughts put into a fresh new topic here on the zone.

As for my most over rated..I mean Namath has to be up there for sure. I also agree with the other poster that the the modern over rated player is Eli.

Originally posted by krizay:

Very well written and appreciate the time, effort and thoughts put into a fresh new topic here on the zone.

As for my most over rated..I mean Namath has to be up there for sure. I also agree with the other poster that the the modern over rated player is Eli.

Shame he got banned!

Originally posted by English:
Shame he got banned!

from this thread?

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by krizay:
Very well written and appreciate the time, effort and thoughts put into a fresh new topic here on the zone.

As for my most over rated..I mean Namath has to be up there for sure. I also agree with the other poster that the the modern over rated player is Eli.

Shame he got banned!

why??

Originally posted by Thecurrentyear:
Rice, moss...Tim brown?

If you ask me, Tim brown is slightly overrated. Very good for a long time, but never dominant. Didn't do anything exceptionally well.

Lots of corners were overrated. Beware of the corner who comes out with "he can return punts and play wide receiver!!!" hype. Those guys get called elite corners no matter what.

Charles Woodson was never a good cover corner. Ball hawk during gb days, yes. Could hit and blitz, yes. Burned routinely by tons of receivers, including journeyman.

Deion was good but overrated. Take away half the field my ass. Falcons pass defenses sucked with him.

Champ bailey was not a shutdown guy. Beaten plenty.

Patrick Peterson started out overrated.

Dale carter, overrated.

Rod Woodson...watch how badly he was beaten in 92 packers game.

If you hear of a shutdown corner, it's usually bs. Revis was for 3 years. That's about it. The rest are very human.

Wtf? Is any cornerback not overrated then? Has there ever been a good cornerback in the history of the NFL?
Deion and Rod Woodson were all time greats. Deion was the best coverage corner in history. Yeah, he was worthless againtst the run, but to say he is overrated as a coverage guy is a joke

Tim Brown was REALLY good on some bad teams where he was double covered and had Jay freaking Schreider passing to him

Originally posted by sacniner:

Originally posted by Thecurrentyear:

Rice, moss...Tim brown?

If you ask me, Tim brown is slightly overrated. Very good for a long time, but never dominant. Didn't do anything exceptionally well.

Lots of corners were overrated. Beware of the corner who comes out with "he can return punts and play wide receiver!!!" hype. Those guys get called elite corners no matter what.

Charles Woodson was never a good cover corner. Ball hawk during gb days, yes. Could hit and blitz, yes. Burned routinely by tons of receivers, including journeyman.

Deion was good but overrated. Take away half the field my ass. Falcons pass defenses sucked with him.

Champ bailey was not a shutdown guy. Beaten plenty.

Patrick Peterson started out overrated.

Dale carter, overrated.

Rod Woodson...watch how badly he was beaten in 92 packers game.

If you hear of a shutdown corner, it's usually bs. Revis was for 3 years. That's about it. The rest are very human.

Wtf? Is any cornerback not overrated then? Has there ever been a good cornerback in the history of the NFL?
Deion and Rod Woodson were all time greats. Deion was the best coverage corner in history. Yeah, he was worthless againtst the run, but to say he is overrated as a coverage guy is a joke

Tim Brown was REALLY good on some bad teams where he was double covered and had Jay freaking Schreider passing to him

Check the Falcons pass defense rankings while Deion was there. The "he took away half the field" narrative is what makes him overrated. Teams with a corner who takes away half the field don't have terrible pass defenses.

And if you want to know why things were the way they were in Atlanta, this brings us to the core of why Deion, while good, was overrated: he hardly ever left his rcb spot to follow the opponent's top receiver. So while he was covering John Taylor, Rice was burning Charles Dimry for 225 yards and 5 touchdowns.

Darelle Revis from 09-11 was an actual shutdown corner. Louis Wright of Denver, late 70s/early 80s, was better than the guys I named.

Tim Brown never produced with Schroeder. It was with Hostetler, George, and Gannon. Secondly, the term"double coverage" is a joke in NFL circles. Every single receiver in history was "double covered" most downs. All it means is there's a safety in zone over the top, which there nearly always is for every receiver to ever play the game. Double coverage does not mean, "double teamed, which zero receivers are.

But it's favorite coach speak for either excusing a struggling receiver ("oh, they're double covering him"), or heaping some additional bogus praise on him ("he draws double coverage and opens things up for other guys!!!111")

"Jerry Rice drew double coverage and opened things up for John Taylor!!!111"

Yeah, tell that to John Taylor when this was what he was actually facing:

https://www.gettyimages.ae/detail/news-photo/cornerback-deion-sanders-and-safety-scott-case-of-the-news-photo/80682592

There are normally two safeties over the top, and they split the deep help. Any receiver passes through one of their zones will be double covered. The offense determines which receiver's route takes him into double coverage, not the defensive call. The defense only decides what zones to set, and they usually have everything set for that both deep and inside underneath (linebackers). Of course, when you run multiple receivers into the same zone, all bets are off.

Brown just didn't do anything that blew you away. Good not great route runner. Good not great speed. Good not great rac. Not a jump ball great. Just very good all around for a long time.

Largent benefitted some from some Jim Zorn option stuff that allowed him to sneak behind people deep and pad his stats, but in general, he earned what he got. Brown was a better athlete, but as an overall receiver, it's debatable who was better between the two.

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by English:

Shame he got banned!

from this thread?

Nope. He is gone. Some really unacceptable posting and pm's.

Ok, some more:

Don Hutson: it's an absolute joke how people (none of whom even saw him play) try to put him in with the greats, or even say he was better than Rice. People: he played in an all-white league. It would be like if we banned blacks from playing in the NFL today and then proclaimed Jordy Nelson one of the goats/the goat because of all his "black ink." All Hutson was was the best white receiver in the game in his era, and I'm sorry, but wide receiver is a position blacks are just better at. Athleticism is paramount, and nearly all of the best athletes in the attributes that make receivers great are black. It's not so different from playing cornerback, where there are...is there a single white corner in even college football today? I'm sure there's one somewhere, but there are zero in the NFL. Jason Seahorn was the last. If blacks didn't make up the best 1,000 or so corners in the world, we would be seeing white corners. We don't, because as a race, we're simply not as good at it.

Lance Alworth: not as bad as mentioning Hutson, but the guy only succeded in the AFL. Not only was it inferior competition, but it was a passing league. Look up Art Powell's numbers. Nobody seems to mention him. How about Charley Hennigan and Bill Groman? He's a favorite of the stat nerds/box score heads. The types of people who look at stats out of context and just get swept away in superficial numbers.

Originally posted by Nflhistorian49:

Ok, some more:

Don Hutson: it's an absolute joke how people (none of whom even saw him play) try to put him in with the greats, or even say he was better than Rice. People: he played in an all-white league. It would be like if we banned blacks from playing in the NFL today and then proclaimed Jordy Nelson one of the goats/the goat because of all his "black ink." All Hutson was was the best white receiver in the game in his era, and I'm sorry, but wide receiver is a position blacks are just better at. Athleticism is paramount, and nearly all of the best athletes in the attributes that make receivers great are black. It's not so different from playing cornerback, where there are...is there a single white corner in even college football today? I'm sure there's one somewhere, but there are zero in the NFL. Jason Seahorn was the last. If blacks didn't make up the best 1,000 or so corners in the world, we would be seeing white corners. We don't, because as a race, we're simply not as good at it.

Lance Alworth: not as bad as mentioning Hutson, but the guy only succeded in the AFL. Not only was it inferior competition, but it was a passing league. Look up Art Powell's numbers. Nobody seems to mention him. How about Charley Hennigan and Bill Groman? He's a favorite of the stat nerds/box score heads. The types of people who look at stats out of context and just get swept away in superficial numbers.

I don't see the comments about Hutson. I wouldn't agree with any attempt to put him level with Rice but the fact that he was the best white receiver in an all white game means he was the best receiver in the game. QED. Wasn't his fault the game was segregated. So ok for the HoF but not better or even level with the greats.

And while we're on the subject of white receivers:

The second most overrated player in NFL history: Wes Welker.

Literally every receiver who ever made it to the NFL could catch 100+ passes playing the "slot" receiver role with the Patriots. Catching screen passes and drags out of the spread is not difficult to do.

One thing people need to learn is that there is no such position as "slot receiver." There are wide receivers, and they can play in the slot. Places wide receivers can line up include split end, flanker, and slot.

Virtually every receiver to ever play the game played in the slot on numerous plays. Jerry Rice played in the slot. Check his breakaway 81 yard touchdown vs. Dallas in 1995. He was lined up in the slot. Terrell Owens played in the slot. Randy Moss played in the slot. Antonio Freeman and Andre Rison caught TDs in the 96-97 Packers/Patriots Super Bowl, running deep patterns from the slot.

Welker wasn't a "slot receiver," he was a receiver who ONLY lined up in the slot, because that was the only thing he was capable of doing. Nearly every other receiver plays other receiver positions as well. Welker didn't because he wasn't talented enough to do so. He could only be a role player in the Patriots' offense, where their use of the slot receiver was dinky little freebee underneath passes out of the spread. It's the same role that took Troy Brown from career #3 receiver to 83, 101, and 97 (in 14 games) catch seasons. The same one that made Julian Edelman a 100 catch receiver.

Wes Welker: Slower than molasses flowing uphill on a winter's eve. Would struggle to crack 4.8 in the 40. Might have had the worst vertical I've ever seen from an NFL receiver. If the ball was 2 feet over his head, he couldn't get it. He was 5'8" and jumped like a girl. He was a non-factor after the catch, unless you consider being a "factor" after the catch to be following a convoy of blockers on a screen for 7 yards, then running out of bounds, or getting a few yards when they scheme you wide open on a drag route against linebackers, going forward for a few, and then going down to the first tackler. His average distance from the line of scrimmage in which he caught a pass in his career was 5.4 yards. He was a good route runner within the limited route tree he ran, but you could say this about every single player who didn't run 4.4 or better who made it to the NFL who was under 6 feet. Harry Douglas would have killed in that role.

One last thing to note: Out of all the wide receivers in the top 250 in NFL history in receiving yards, the three worst in yards per catch average were as follows: Troy Brown, Julian Edelman, and Wes Welker.

People need to get the idea that a "catch" means anything out of their head. A catch in and of itself has zero value. Yards and touchdowns are what hold value. You can lose yards on a catch. You can gain nothing on a catch. Requiring more catches to get the same number of yards and/or touchdowns as another receiver is a BAD thing.

Anybody can get catches. You could throw to offensive linemen lined up as 6th men (if you didn't care about the outcome) and get them 100 catches.

Derek Loville caught 87 passes for us in 1995. Why? Scheme. It's not difficult to catch passes in a scheme designed for it.

The yards and touchdowns are what matter, and what it takes to produce them is what determines how good the player is.

Kory Sheets

The most overrated thread in webzone history.

Originally posted by SoCold:
The most overrated thread in webzone history.

truly the most threaded overrate webzone in history.

Darock just needs to put Darock2, Darock3, Darock4 that way we can count how many banned accounts he's piling up.