Who is the greatest player of the 2000's era?

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I think just based upon the effect Brady had on each game, is why it isn't close. Despite any effort to do so, there is bias. The quarterback is the MOST important position. Look at the Ravens SB run. If it weren't for Flacco going insane they would've been fucked. There is no other position that can control the game like that.

 

Ray can lay out anyone across the field, but he can only be at one spot at one time. The QB can put the ball anywhere to who he wants. To who can make the best play or gain.

 

Is Ray the greatest MLB to ever play? Probably, at least IMO. Is he "greater" and more impactful than Brady? No. If we were to make a scale for each position, the pros and cons of QB far outweigh LB. You can't be better when your potential for impacting the game is smaller. Put Brady and Ray on a team together. Who is the true star? Brady. Ogden and Brady? Brady. Tony G and Brady? Brady again. (Look at Brady-Moss for a real example) Now if it were a QB like Flacco, and a player like Lewis? It's Ray all day.

 

tl;dr? Brady due to position impacts more and is therefore "greater" by default.

 

 

I'm not gonna get into an argument about Goodell and the emergence of offense. I think you have a hatred for QBs and a love for defense, and you let it cloud your sight at times.

 

Well, look at the Ravens first SB run, tell me how important QB is too winning, or the 06 Steelers, 0r the Bucs, Peytons run game and defense when they won it for him,. Yeah the effect of defense was far more prominent in the 2000's then I think a lot of you realize.

 

QB's can only be at one spot at once too, being a QB you dont get superpowers.

 

And finally that was my point. People only say qb, because of POSITION. Looking at how dominant each were at their respective opinions you cant tell me it is a one horse race. Since they were asking for PLAYER not POSITION, I stand by every comment I made.

[Vin+ 3,121]

The fact that all of Brady's SB wins came off of Vinatieri's foot has to be a knock. I mean, we're talking the best player of the decade. You would think that in one of those games Brady would ball-out and sling stuff all over the field and just dominate, especially considering he had defenses behind him that were no worse than 6th in the league in points allowed during those SB years. (#6 against the Rams, #1 against the Panthers, #2 against the Eagles). But no, everything had to be a close game, even when the Pats were comfortably favored to win the game beforehand, that came down to Vinatieri's foot. And even against the Eagles, the Pats didn't score over the last eight minutes of the game. He even managed to lose to, and only put up 14 points in the process, the lowly 10-6 Giants when he had arguably the greatest offense in the history of the league at the time.

 

That's not the mark of the decade's greatest player, IMO.

 

The answer to the question at hand lies in the hands of defensive player, and it doesn't really matter which one. All of the offensive guys have too many issues for me to comfortably pick as the greatest player of the decade.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

The fact that all of Brady's SB wins came off of Vinatieri's foot has to be a knock. I mean, we're talking the best player of the decade. You would think that in one of those games Brady would ball-out and sling stuff all over the field and just dominate, especially considering he had defenses behind him that were no worse than 6th in the league in points allowed during those SB years. (#6 against the Rams, #1 against the Panthers, #2 against the Eagles). But no, everything had to be a close game, even when the Pats were comfortably favored to win the game beforehand, that came down to Vinatieri's foot. And even against the Eagles, the Pats didn't score over the last eight minutes of the game. He even managed to lose to, and only put up 14 points in the process, the lowly 10-6 Giants when he had arguably the greatest offense in the history of the league at the time.

 

That's not the mark of the decade's greatest player, IMO.

 

The answer to the question at hand lies in the hands of defensive player, and it doesn't really matter which one. All of the offensive guys have too many issues for me to comfortably pick as the greatest player of the decade.

 

Without Brady, those kicks don't happen. And it's a shock that superbowls are close games? Almost all of them are..it's why it's the superbowl, it's the two(or at least two of) best teams in the game. And while they only scored 17 points against the Giants, he still led a, what would have been game winning drive, if Asante Samuel didn't have butterfingers and Eli Manning didn't pull off his best Jesus impression.

 

Also important to note Brady was throwing to, more or less, a bunch of nobodies his first 3 superbowl appearances. As great as those Pats Ds may have been, Brady still had to end up leading a drive to put his team ahead in 3 out of the 5 superbowls he's been in..and was successful in all 3 of those attempts, with his D failing him on the third.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

It's Tom Brady. Peyton Manning at a close #2. Best non-QB has to be Ladanian Tomlinson.

[Dutch 874]

Honestly this would be so much more interesting if I excluded QBs because of how the position is glorified. By default, QBs are going to get more recognition and praise because of the importance and impact of the position. Franchises are built around QBs, not WRs. However, I do believe that Randy Moss was better at his position at WR than Tom Brady was at QB. There is a difference and here is my reasoning.

 

Tom Brady didn't step onto the scene as an elite QB. He was a solid QB when he was winning those superbowls. He won and took Drew Bledsoe's job barring injury and won 3 superbowls behind an elite defense and solid numbers. Tom Brady didn't have his first great season until 2005 after they won the superbowl and didn't have his first elite season until 2007. Brady didn't start putting up those gaudy numbers until later in his career in the latter end of the 2000's and took his offense to epic heights.

 

However in the case of Randy Moss, Moss stepped onto the scene like no other WR in the history of the game. Moss was elite from day 1. He shocked the league and changed/impacted the game in how teams defended the deep ball. There was NO answer for Randy Moss. He literally could not be stopped. I truly believe people forgot how unstoppable he was or was too young to understand what Moss did to the game. He dominated the league effortlessly and played some of the best receiver the game has ever seen for just about that entire decade.

 

So yes, maximizing at their respective positions, I do believe that Moss played at a higher level at his position than Tom Brady did throughout the 2000's era. Moss turned it on and was elite from season one while Brady was a solid QB who took years to develop into an elite QB.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Dutch

[RazorStar 4,025]

Moss' career was interesting because he have been so much more if he had better role models in Minnesota (sorry Carter, I know you meant well, but he needed a voice in his head in the Tice years and never go to Oakland)

[Dutch 874]

Make a top 5 list fellas to make this more interesting

 

Here is my top 5 list:

 

Randy Moss - The way he impacted the league at his position is literally unprecedented. You can take some points off him for his lack of effort at times. But for him to still be as productive and be the 2nd best WR of all time considering he didn't always give 100 truly puts into perspective his talent and potential (lol @ potential with 156 TDs).

 

Ray Lewis

 

Peyton Manning

 

Ed Reed

 

Champ Bailey

 

 

Ladainian and Polamalu are sitting right outside this list.

[BJORN 679]

Manning

Brady

Lewis

LT

Moss

[RazorStar 4,025]

1. Champ Bailey (I'm biased bitch, Champ is the best though.)

2. John Ogden (Far and away the best LT that came out of the late 90's early 00's crop. Might be the best to play the game.)

3. Ray Lewis (May be the most dominant MLB ever. Bobby Bell is about the only player I think is close.)

4. Peyton Manning (Absolutely hate the guy, but he rewrote the record books in the regular season. Thank you Bill Polian, you colossal faggot)

5. LaDainian Tomlinson (He was a god damn monster and I hated playing him twice a year. What an unreal back.)

 

Sirs not making this list because there is not 1995:2005 team.

Warren Sapp. Obvious.

Michael Strahan. Obvious.

Marshall Faulk. The most underrated runningback of our time, you put him right behind Payton, Sanders and Brown. If you don't you're doing it wrong.

 

Sirs not making this list because there is not a 2005-2015 team

Drew Brees. His career really didn't take off until he was a Saint.

Aaron Rodgers. He makes all other QB's look like they don't know what they're doing.

Adrian Peterson. Get out of my dreams, get into my backfield.

[BradyFan81 404]

The fact that all of Brady's SB wins came off of Vinatieri's foot has to be a knock. I mean, we're talking the best player of the decade.

 

So you ignore the fact that he leads his team 55 yards down the field with 1:21 left? With no timeouts? I don't get how that's a knock on Brady. Obviously the offense didn't do much that game but he came up clutch when it mattered and got his team the win. That's kind of what it's all about, right? Also this was his 1st year starting. How was Peyton in his 1st year starting?

 

You would think that in one of those games Brady would ball-out and sling stuff all over the field and just dominate, especially considering he had defenses behind him that were no worse than 6th in the league in points allowed during those SB years. (#6 against the Rams, #1 against the Panthers, #2 against the Eagles). But no, everything had to be a close game, even when the Pats were comfortably favored to win the game beforehand, that came down to Vinatieri's foot.

 

I would say Brady balled out in the Panthers game. Clutch game winning drive, 3 TDs, 354 yards, set the SB record for most completions in a game (Brees tied it in 09 but Brady did this back in 03, before they started strictly enforcing the illegal contact rule the next year).

 

Also in that game the Pats #1 ranked defense gave up 3 TDs and 323 yards to Jake Delhomme. So it was pretty much all on the offense to score points or we were gonna lose.

 

Not to mention Vinateri missed 2 kicks in that game.

 

That's just a weak argument to me that you're saying he didn't win his SBs by enough. Who cares how much you win by? Just get the W. I don't have a problem with you picking a defensive player or another player by basing your argument off they were better at their position then Brady is at his position, but that didn't win by enough/bailed out by Vinateri argument irks me.

Edited July 7, 2014 by BradyFan81

[Tridentdawgpound 1,043]

1. Brady

2. Manning

3. Moss

4. Stabbin' Ray

5. LDT

[Turry 755]

The QB bias is just awful.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

I find it funny that considering Brady the best player of the last decade is somehow "QB Bias" when you can very well argue he's a better QB than any of these guys are a better player at their position. Brady's the 2nd best QB of all time only behind Montana. He's a better QB than Champ Bailey was a CB, Ray Lewis was an LB, etc. At least, in my opinion. Brady was better than everyone else on this poll and played the most important position. Thus he's the extremely easy answer to this question...noted by his 12 votes, and the next highest having 3.

[DJG 2]

As much as I think this is a great argument & as much as I hate QB bias... I gotta go with Tom Brady. Just look that the receiving corps of those three Super Bowl teams. Brady put in work & was the most clutch QB when he was called up. Stats aside & just looking purely at wins, championships & what he meant to the Pats & the league in general. it's Brady.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

I guess I'm not sure if you want only guys who played completely through 2000-2010 or if they could have stopped short of 2010. Ah well, here goes.

 

1. Tom Brady

2. Peyton Manning

3. Ladanian Tomlinson

4. Ray Lewis

5. Randy Moss - 5 is a shame. We'll always say "what could have been".

6. Michael Strahan - Some of his best seasons came post-2000.

7. Tony Gonzalez

8. Ed Reed

9. Champ Bailey

10. Terrell Owens

 

 

Guys I was on the verge of trying to fit in: Torry Holt, Drew Brees, Marvin Harrison,

[Vin+ 3,121]

 

Without Brady, those kicks don't happen. And it's a shock that superbowls are close games? Almost all of them are..it's why it's the superbowl, it's the two(or at least two of) best teams in the game. And while they only scored 17 points against the Giants, he still led a, what would have been game winning drive, if Asante Samuel didn't have butterfingers and Eli Manning didn't pull off his best Jesus impression.

 

Also important to note Brady was throwing to, more or less, a bunch of nobodies his first 3 superbowl appearances. As great as those Pats Ds may have been, Brady still had to end up leading a drive to put his team ahead in 3 out of the 5 superbowls he's been in..and was successful in all 3 of those attempts, with his D failing him on the third.

Didn't exactly say that Super Bowls being close is shocking. All I'm saying is that the so-called best player of the decade on a team that's superior to its competition (maybe not against the Rams, but they did win, so maybe) shouldn't have to rely on last second FGs or winning margins of just three points against teams they're expected to comfortably beat, both by those in Vegas and by public opinion.

 

 

 

So you ignore the fact that he leads his team 55 yards down the field with 1:21 left? With no timeouts? I don't get how that's a knock on Brady. Obviously the offense didn't do much that game but he came up clutch when it mattered and got his team the win. That's kind of what it's all about, right? Also this was his 1st year starting. How was Peyton in his 1st year starting?

 

 

Yep.

 

And Peyton's neither here nor there. But since you asked, he was setting rookie passing records while on a 3-13 team that was coached by Jim Mora and fielded an almost league worst defense in both points and yards per game.

 

 

I would say Brady balled out in the Panthers game. Clutch game winning drive, 3 TDs, 354 yards, set the SB record for most completions in a game (Brees tied it in 09 but Brady did this back in 03, before they started strictly enforcing the illegal contact rule the next year).

 

Also in that game the Pats #1 ranked defense gave up 3 TDs and 323 yards to Jake Delhomme. So it was pretty much all on the offense to score points or we were gonna lose.

 

Not to mention Vinateri missed 2 kicks in that game.

 

Yeah, I can't fault him for that one. By far his best SB performance.

 

 

That's just a weak argument to me that you're saying he didn't win his SBs by enough. Who cares how much you win by? Just get the W. I don't have a problem with you picking a defensive player or another player by basing your argument off they were better at their position then Brady is at his position, but that didn't win by enough/bailed out by Vinateri argument irks me.

I do, unfortunately. Since we're talking about best player of the decade, style points, or the lack thereof, factor into my decision.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Vin

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

Im not sure how you can penalize a player for not dominating in a Superbowl. We can all agree that even while those teams were great as a whole it wasn't as if Brady played poorly en route to the SB.

 

It's the Super Bowl, generally speaking the two best teams in the league. To say that game shouldn't come down to a FG or a single score is ridiculous. That's the one hand you shouldn't expect a guy to dominate in IMO.

[Cobresol 18]

Tough omissions: Jon Ogden, Alan Faneca, Anquan Boldin, London Fletcher, Steve Smith

 

19/20. Derrick Brooks/Brian Dawkins... because both are criminally underrated and I can't think of another player worthy right now

18. Drew Brees... good, but a stat padder

17. Big Ben

16. Larry Fitz... penalized for only playing six seasons in the decade, but he would have gone pro in 2003 if he were able to.

14/15. Marvin/Holt

13. Urlacher

12. Walter/Hutch

11. Champ

10. Kurt Warner... I'm sorry, but anyone who leads the Rams AND Cardinals to SBs is a generational talent.

8/9. Reed/Polamalu

7. T-Gonz

6. Ray Lewis

5. T.O.... Talent > personality

4. Randy Moss... Probably the greatest offensive weapon of the era (other than LDT)

3. LDT... if not for Marlon McCree the Chargers probably hoist the Lombardi in 2006

1/2. Brady/Manning

Edited July 8, 2014 by Cobresol

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

This is truly a rare occasion. Its not often that Vin flexes his football knowledge muscles. Haha.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I find it funny that considering Brady the best player of the last decade is somehow "QB Bias" when you can very well argue he's a better QB than any of these guys are a better player at their position. Brady's the 2nd best QB of all time only behind Montana. He's a better QB than Champ Bailey was a CB, Ray Lewis was an LB, etc. At least, in my opinion. Brady was better than everyone else on this poll and played the most important position. Thus he's the extremely easy answer to this question...noted by his 12 votes, and the next highest having 3.

 

You could argue that as well. I could give you 5 players that all things considered could push Brady out of the Top 5 and it would be legitimate. Does it make it true ? To me yes, to you no. I could say Marino, Montana, Unitas can have a strong case made for being better. Then 4 and 5 Jesus I could put in Young, Peyton, Brady, Luckman, Brees to name a few and all would have case. The fact that this board has an uncomfortable infestation of Brady fans that does not surprise me he got 12 votes when coupled with yes, a QB Bias.

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

 

You could argue that as well. I could give you 5 players that all things considered could push Brady out of the Top 5 and it would be legitimate. Does it make it true ? To me yes, to you no. I could say Marino, Montana, Unitas can have a strong case made for being better. Then 4 and 5 Jesus I could put in Young, Peyton, Brady, Luckman, Brees to name a few and all would have case. The fact that this board has an uncomfortable infestation of Brady fans that does not surprise me he got 12 votes when coupled with yes, a QB Bias.

There are more Peyton fans than Brady fans here tho..

[Omerta+ 1,206]

There are more Peyton fans than Brady fans here tho..

 

In either case they both irritate me. Brady more than Peyton, but not by much.

[oochymp 2,393]

the fact that the Brady/Manning debate has been going for so long has to count against them when you've got guys like Randy Moss, Ray Lewis, Champ Bailey, and Ladanian Tomlinson who were clearly the best at their positions

[KempBolt 498]

I've thought about this a while, and I'm not voting because Steve Hutchinson isn't an option.

 

As I see it, the guy played all but one season out of the decade, was consistently dominant, was easily the best at his position by a wide margin, and was still elite when the decade came to a close.

 

While he was obviously never as valuable as a Tom Brady or Peyton Manning, I think he was even better at playing guard than they were at playing quarterback.

 

My 2nd choice is Ladainian Tomlinson. The man had 17,727 yards and 159 yards within the decade. And his greatness was consistent for the first 7 years of his career right up until the wheels fell off physically (a very long run for a RB considering the touches he was getting annually). He didn't have down years in the middle of his prime like Moss or Owens did. And lastly, he plays a position that is heavily dependent on the performance of other players and still produced like crazy for the first 3 years of his career on some truly bad teams.

 

Ray Lewis and Champ Bailey could just as easily be the choice too.

Edited July 8, 2014 by KempBolt

[SteVo+ 3,702]

the fact that the Brady/Manning debate has been going for so long has to count against them when you've got guys like Randy Moss, Ray Lewis, Champ Bailey, and Ladanian Tomlinson who were clearly the best at their positions

 

I disagree with that logic.

 

What if there were a receiver, for example, who was on par with Randy Moss (let's call him John Doe), and the two were so even statistically that the Moss/Doe debates carried on for pages and pages at message boards like this. Would we really count it against Moss in that case?