Discussion of each selection:
Note: I use the word "Consensus" below to refer the generally agreed upon best player at a given position within the football-world based on my research. I rely on the consensus here for brevity's sake. I don't need to explain why most people's #1 pick is my #1 pick, I just need to explain the oddball picks. Not all "consensus" players have the same level of backing and some player with a strong general consensus may have vocal detractors, but a consensus nonetheless exists.
Quarterbacks: This position was addressed in the blog, but I have a few thoughts to add here.
It's no coincidence that my top 3 are the career ring-count leaders. Quarterback is the only position where championship success has been taken into consideration. Dick Butkus never made the playoffs, Barry Sanders didn't have much post-season success, but I'm not putting someone in the driver's seat who couldn't win the big one. Brady has 7 rings, Starr has 5, and Montana is tied with Terry Bradshaw and Sid Luckman at 4 (I don't count Otto Graham's AAFL rings). Montana over Bradshaw is obvious because Bradshaw's other stats aren't all that impressive. It's a much tougher call between Montana and Luckman.
Ultimately, I'm coward enough to go with the more popular choice of Montana over Luckman.
Runningbacks: Though no clear winner emerges, this is definitely the consensus triumvirate. I would suppose, if put to a national vote, Sanders would come out on top, but I prefer collision runners, and Brown barely noses out Sanders in rushing yards per attempt.
Fullbacks: Lots of people would categorize Jim Brown as a FB and start Brown and Sanders. This is bullshit. The fullback role has evolved into a blocking/receiving role and the old FB/HB distinction is now lost as big backs simply play in the same formations as smaller backs. With the new roles of fullback in mind, Motley and Nagurski quickly become the obvious choices. I bet there's a lot of people who would start Nagurski over Motley, but I like Motley's footwork and receiving ability better.
WR: After Rice, Moss, and Hutson, there are no consensus picks for 4th and 5th best WR of all time. Lance Alworth's ability to bring recognition and respect to the AFL and being the first AFL player inducted into the Hall of Fame is what was the deciding factor in selecting him. Owens was selected on the strength of his stats (top 3 in receiving yards and TDs). Hester is the consensus return man and Tasker is the consensus (practically the only) special teams player.
TE: Mackey and Ditka are the twin peaks of old-school TE physicality. While they're not exactly oddball choices, they're certainly the biggest indicator of my own old-school biases. Gonzalez is definitely the consensus pick and I have him way back at 3rd. Rob Gronkowski was selected based off his insane physicality (a rare power-blocker in today's game) and his high touchdown total.
OL: There's a part of me that wants to only field modern offensive linemen since the position has gained so much weight in the last 30 years. However, denying entire eras entre to the team defeats the whole purpose of an all-time team, so I treat players as undersized only if they were undersized in their era. Dwight Stephenson was undersized, but his highlight reel is my favorite to watch of any offensive lineman. Absolutely dominant. Hannah is the near-consensus best guard, and Parker's footage, ranking on the NFL films and sporting news top 100 lists, plus the testimony of
Ron Wolf gets him my vote. Parker split his career equally at guard and tackle, so I put him at guard to make room for Munoz and Gregg. Munoz is the consensus best tackle (more important for positions without solid stats) and Gregg gets my vote based on the testimony of
Vince Lombardi and
Deacon Jones. You could argue that Matthews and Allen are better than anyone here, but I feel they're best utilized as reserve players for their versatility. I wanted a third center for depth, and Jim Otto is the toughest son of a bitch I've ever seen.
DT: While I have the players listed strictly by DT/DE on the roster, the backup roles become clear if you break it down by technique:
1-Tech: Greene, Page
3-Tech: White, Donald
Edge: Jones, Smith
Stand-Up Rush: Taylor, Bell, Hendricks
Certainly there's plenty of flexibility here in the event of multiple injuries.
I worry that I have a old-timer bias at DT because Donald is a 3x Defensive Player of the Year, yet I'm not starting him. Earlier iterations of this list included Bob Lilly and Merlin Olsen, which literally made it the 70s All-Decade team. At least Alan Page has a league MVP to his name, something Donald cannot claim (although he did get voted #1 on the Top 100 Players list). But for now, I'm going with my gut and starting White over Donald even though White never strictly played 3-tech.
DE: Again, a consensus trio for my top 3 picks with no clear winner. Part of me wants to start Smith over Jones, but ultimately Jones's reputation sealed the deal. Marchetti's footage plus his spot on the Sporting News top 100 and NFL Networks Top 10 pass rushers secured his #4 spot. If Jones and Smith get hurt, I'd probably move White to DE and put Page or Donald in as the 3-tech. Marchetti also spent some time at Tackle, so he provides emergency depth on the O-Line.
MLB: Butkus is the consensus pick (although he did get some knocks from
CHFF and
profootballreference., whom I both respect, but evidently not enough to sway me). I picked Lewis and Lambert over the crowded field of Hall of Fame MLB talent because they thrived in systems similar to mine, specifically their noteworthy play in coverage. Lewis seems to be in the general conversation for best ever, whereas Lambert usually places outside the top 2. I think Lambert
should be in the general best-ever conversation, but since he isn't, I'm putting Lewis at #2 and Lambert at #3.
OLB: Not a huge amount of competition here, largely because the most talented run-stopping/coverage backs are usually put in the middle (Stiffer competition for outside pass-rushing OLBs, but I wasn't really looking for those, LT being the exception, as he is in the top 3 pass rushers all-time). Dave Robinson and Dave Wilcox are the only HOF competition, and both waited decades to get in. Brooks and Ham are #2 and #3 on the depth chart because they are more pass-coverage and system oriented than Bell (who doubled as DE) and Hendricks (a roaming, blitz-if-I-feel-like-it type). And Bell and Hendricks are both major special teams contributors (Bell is the backup long-snapper and Hendricks unofficially has the most blocked kicks in NFL history). Incredibly close call between starting Ham and Brooks. I went with Brooks because he is the harder-hitter.
CB: Easily my oddest bunch, but also where my team shows-off it’s unique identity. As I addressed in the blog, I favor players who can dish out serious physical punishment while also providing solid coverage rather than selecting the best pure cover corners (my picks for best pure cover corner would have been Deion Sanders, Darrell Green, Mike Haynes). Lane, Blount, and Adderley all fit this mold. Charles and Rod Woodson can also play at corner in the event of injuries.
S: Lott is the consensus pick. Tunnell was selected based on his #2 all-time interception total, footage, and the testimony of
Sam Huff. Both secured their starting spots with their reputation as not just hard hitters, but among the hardest hitters. Rod Woodson was selected for interception total, footage, and corner/safety versatility. He and Charles Woodson had
eerily similar careers, with a razor-thin margin separating the two. I ultimately gave more weight to All-Pro and Pro Bowl picks, which gives the nod to Rod. Reed was selected for interception total, footage, and special-teams ability. He's arguably more talented than either Woodson, but I wanted the 3rd safety to have a starting CB skillset (I see Charles Woodson as Rod's 2nd string back, with Reed as 2nd string to both Lott and Tunnell). Christiansen is easily the single oddest pick on the team. Until he recently made the
NFL 100 team, I couldn't even find a highlight reel! He was picked as Devin Hester's backup because he is one of the
greatest punt returners in the history of the game (it's absolutely criminal that he's never included in any top 10 list you see), is also a ferocious hitter (based on the testimony of
Joe Schmidt), and lastly because he has an incredibly high career interceptions-per-game. Speaking of highlights, here's some of the best Chrisitansen plays I could find online:
One
Two
Three
K: Unless you're judging purely on career FG%, Vinateri is the consensus pick, mostly for post-season dominance (
also, closing speed.)
P: Guy is the consensus pick and only Hall of Fame punter.
Bonus: Here's a great
paragraph on Tasker:
T
asker was certainly a unique player, and in many ways has the profile of a typical Hall of Famer. He was the best at his position, he changed the way the game was player, he shined brightest in the biggest moments, and he forced teams to gameplan around him. Tasker literally changed the way the game was played; the rule that requires the punting team's gunners to stay in bounds was designed to stop Tasker. Tasker made 7 Pro Bowls and was selected to the Associated Press' first-team All-Pro roster five times; before Tasker, special honors weren't given out to non-returner, non-kicker, special teamers. He blocked a punt in the Super Bowl and won the 1993 Pro Bowl MVP. He forced teams to, on occasion, put three blockers on him because as a gunner, he could get past just two men. If he didn't invent the idea of special teams star, he certainly encapsulated it. Tasker's career was as unique as it was noteworthy.
Here's a quick sentence from Gil Brandt about how
Butkus's coverage skills would translate today's game: ...
he had the athleticism to make plays in space. The game is much more open now than it was during Butkus' heyday, but he would have the same effect on the game today that he had then.
