I believe the last time I saw one of these a couple years ago, Abraham and Mawae were the only players on the list. So it's not surprising.
If they judged accurately instead of on team and history, then Kerry Rhodes would certainly be on this list. He is the #2 Safety in the NFL IMO and was slighted by the Pro Bowl Voters in 2007. He is DEFINITELY one of the Top 50 players in the league...
where's jeaux when you need him? no raiders in the top 50 either. There has to be at least 20 or 30 players from the raiders missing from this list.
I dunno. This list seems pretty accurate. Only player I would bump off it for Kerry Rhodes is Lee Evans. Everyone else is pretty much worthy.
I think there are too many WRs/TEs on this list (10 WR, 4 TE). I think Rhodes is on the fringes of top 50. Reed and Polamalu were the only safeties to make the list.
I've always felt you can't take lists like that seriously. There are just too many players and too many variables to clump everyone together and try to rank them. That being said if you still are going to try then yes Rhodes would be somewhere on this list, but that's it (ie no Vilma)
I agree with this, which goes to the confusion at what a list like this is supposed to mean. You're likely to get more players at marquee positions in a list like this, but that can have little to do with who contributes on the field. A more meaningful list is one of the form "Choose your ideal 50 man roster", and I would think Rhodes would be on such a list (but no other Jet would).
I'm sorry but get out. Derrick Brooks (Proowl last year) Ronde Barber (Probowl last year) Simeon Rice C'mon on!
Seconded. You can't compare a guard to an outside linebacker; that's absurd. This list is pointless. It is interesting, however, that the Jets are the only competitive team to not have a player on the list.
You're half right. I mean there are ways to do so. For starters, a simple question. Would you rather have Steve Hutch or Lance Briggs? Second is things like, dependability, health, attitude, etc etc. Off the field qualities. Third is comparison to rest of the league. If Briggs is the best OLB in a sea of crummy ones and Hutch is one of 20 great OG, clearly Briggs would have more value and vise-versa. Last is how do they compare to other players in their position in the past.
What's interesting is that 20% WR's just sounds like too many in the top 50. However if you look at the NFL draft from 2003 to 2007 you find that 20% of the top 10 picks are wide receivers. 2002 is an aberration with no WR's in the top 10 and then you get back to 20% receivers in the top 10 from 2001 to 1999. I think the list is valid in terms of WR's. The NFL is spending a lot of time and effort taking WR's in the top 10 and they've become one of the most value-rich positions in the NFL. WR's taken top 10 since 1998 - 17. QB's taken top 10 since 1998 - 16.
When you were 2-14 last year, and had as bad four years as the Raiders had, you don't deserve to be on that list. Once Raiders start to win(very soon now) than you should start to see alot of Raider names on that list.
You could probably make a case for that corner with the funny name to be on that list.I'd rate him ahead of Terrence Newman.
Who N Asomugha. Listen I think this isn't a survey of NFl players, who came up with their list of top fifty players in the NFL.? Its just someone in the media coming up with their top fifty. Like all star games, where fans vote, Its all perception. Again as bad as the raiders been the last four years, IT tough for some of the players to get noticed by media. They don't see them enough , as that team dosen't have that many National televised games. No one to blame but themselves. JMO I rather see what NFl Players(their peers) think is the top fifty players. More accurate .
