NFL Top ten lists
JOE KAPP - 1969
Is it just me? Is anyone else getting tired of these top ten lists? It seems there is a top ten list for everything these days. Top ten quarterbacks, top ten running backs, top ten receivers, top ten defenses. Don't get me wrong, I like a good debate as much as any other football fan, but there are so many variables that need to be taken into consideration when making these lists. For instance, who was a better QB, Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana, Tom Brady, or Roger Staubach? First of all, can you really go wrong with any of these guys leading your team? Secondly, how can I make a comparison between Johnny Unitas and Tom Brady, when they not only played in different eras, but under very different rules. For example, when Johnny Unitas played, there were no special rules to protect the quarterbacks. Roughing the quarterback was rarely called, there was no tuck rule, no spiking the ball to stop the clock. There was also no such thing as being a full time football player. Players did not make enough money during the season to consider themselves full time athletes. Once the season was over, they went to work as insurance salesmen, car salesmen, construction workers, or whatever job they could get to support their families. They didn't have much time to train during the off season, because they were working. Very few football players during that time were on a weightlifting program, or knew anything about proper nutrition, or what vitamins and supplements they should be taking. They also didn't have arthroscopic surgery, and a team of doctors, Therapists and chiropractors to tend to their injuries. Want to talk about Receivers? It is widely accepted that Jerry Rice is the best receiver ever. Ever hear of Lance Alworth, Charlie Taylor, Fred Biletnikoff, Don Hutson? Want to compare numbers? It's not even close. Rice has far greater numbers than any of these guys, so doesn't that mean he was the best? Not necessarily, because once again, we're talking about players who played in different eras and under different rules. Pass interference was rarely called prior to the late 1970's, and there was no five yard rule, where you can only bump the receiver for the first five yards. These guys were getting bumped all the way down the field. Because of this, teams ran the ball more than they threw the ball.
My goal here is not to disparage the likes of Tom Brady, or Joe Montana, or Jerry Rice. I am simply pointing out that it's not so simple to say this player or that player was the greatest ever, when the eras they played in were so vastly different. Another top ten list that makes very little sense is the top ten linebackers, where they lump all the linebackers together, regardless of the fact that the position and responsibilities of a middle linebacker are vastly different than that of an outside linebacker. How can one compare Lawrence Taylor to Dick Butkus? Now we're not only talking about different eras, but also different positions.
Want to compare running backs? I think it's fair to say that for the most part, the rule changes have not had a great effect on the running game, but if you want to discuss the longevity of a running back, todays back has a huge advantage. I can't even begin to tell you how many running backs I watched in the 1970's who could have gone on to a hall of fame career, but didn't, because of knee injuries and surgeries, that either slowed them down considerably, or ended their career altogether. Many of the knee injuries these players sustained would only require arthroscopic surgery today, not to mention the rehabilitation is 100 times better today than it was at that time.
Another debate I get tired of hearing is, who was better, Barry Sanders or Emmitt Smith? It's a silly debate in my opinion, because these guys had a completely different running style. Why does one have to be better than the other? The Dallas Cowboys offense was built around the talents of Emmitt Smith, and the Detroit Lions offense was built around the talents of Barry Sanders. If they had switched teams, the offensive schemes of both teams would have been very different. Barry Sanders never made it to a super bowl with the Lions. Would he have if he had played for the Cowboys instead? Yes, he probably would have, but I could make that same argument with any number of players. Would Joe Montana and Terry Bradshaw have four super bowl rings if they had played on bad teams? Would Jerry Rice have all the receiving records if he didn't have two hall of fame QB's throwing him the ball? Would Archie Manning have made it to the hall of fame if he had played for the Steelers rather than the Saints? It's all speculation, and the debates could go on forever.
I enjoyed watching all of these players. I see no need to say this one was better than that one, or compare their statistics. It's likely that Johnny Unitas statistics would be much more impressive had he played in the 1990's instead of the 1960's, and it's likely that Jerry Rice's statistics would not be so off the charts had he played in the 1960's instead of the 1990's, but I've always believed that a great player would be a great player no matter what era he played in. I grew up watching 1970's football, so of course I'm always going to be partial to the players of that era. If you grew up watching 1990's football, or 21st century football, you will likely be partial to those players. Times change, the rules change, players change, but the game goes on. So you can keep making your top ten lists and debating over who was the greatest ever if that's what you enjoy. I prefer to just cherish the memories.
