<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>It's once again time to talk about the most indispensable players in the NFL. I did it in July 2007 -- on a whim no less -- and it created enough debate that it was worth bringing back for another year of discussion. After all, the same 10 players can't always be on the list. There are simply too many factors that change over the course of a year for that to happen. In fact, there are only three players on the 2007 list that qualified to make this year's top 10. Why? Well, some of the players on the 2007 list wound up on teams that finished with losing records (like Chicago's Brian Urlacher). Others just didn't put up the kind of numbers that made them indispensable in the first place (like Carolina's Julius Peppers). And one fellow wound up in prison because he was dumb enough to operate a dogfighting ring with his pals (Atlanta's Michael Vick). But that doesn't mean this list is any less interesting. It just means you will have more new names to argue about when you're deciding which players mean the most to their respective teams. So, as the 2008 training camps start, here are the most indispensable players in the NFL:</div> <div align="center">Source: ESPN.com</div> The list is: 1. Tom Brady 2. Peyton Manning 3. Terrell Owens 4. Adrian Peterson 5. Antonio Gates 6. Albert Haynesworth 7. Brian Westbrook 8. Joe Thomas 9. Matt Hasselbeck 10. Eli Manning You should read the article to at least get an understanding of how he justifies it, though. The criteria for his rankings seemed a bit ambiguous to me but I figured it'd be interesting to discuss nonetheless. Thoughts?
What about Randy Moss? Wtf is this guy talking about? I could care less about the top two debate, you can ague that until you're blue in the face, but Moss is clearly important. Let's stop trying to slide his historic season under the rug.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 24 2008, 11:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What about Randy Moss? Wtf is this guy talking about? I could care less about the top two debate, you can ague that until you're blue in the face, but Moss is clearly important. Let's stop trying to slide his historic season under the rug.</div> i think he tried to make it one per team
How about Hester? Whatever success the Bears have had in recent years, a lot of it is attributable to his turning a game around with a return for a TD; or simply that when teams kickoff or punt, he's a scary threat.
I love how these writers "know" so much... <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Say what you will about T.O. and his controversial history, but you have to admit this much: He's the key to that high-powered offense in Dallas. We saw that much when a high ankle sprain made him ineffective in an NFC divisional playoff loss to the New York Giants. When Owens is healthy, he makes life easier on tight end Jason Witten, wide receiver Patrick Crayton and quarterback Tony Romo. When he's off the field, the Cowboys' passing game isn't nearly as scary … and neither is the rest of that team.</div> Hmm. Seems to me we really don't know what would happen without Owens and Romo at full strength, because we haven't seen it. Yet, he knows... Cool. Time to debunk. Owens, in the first half, was wide open for a TD. Only problem was..... Romo was being chased. I know its a "yeah but"....but its relevant in the "ESPN world." Because had Romo had time to throw that ball, Owens would have had another huge chunk of yardage plus a TD to his stat total, thus prompting ESPN to change position (Hey, Owens was effective!). The reality of it is, the writer has it partially pegged here correctly: Owens was hurting in the NY game and it affected his play. But let's look at how ineffective our offense really was. Fasano dropped a TD pass; Crayton quit on his route on 3rd down for what should have been a TD, and Crayton dropped a wide. open. pass. that would have gotten us at least in the redzone on a critical 3rd down in the (3rd?) Quarter. That's a lot of points taken off the board by stupid mistakes on the part of Fasano/Crayton. Had those plays been made; ESPN would have been slurping Romo off....calling him great, saying the offense can put up big time points despite an injured Owens. Funny, isn't it. A couple of routine plays being made is the difference between an offensive explosion vs we can't function without Owens.... The truth is, we probably would struggle without Owens for an extended period of time. But the writer is wrong in saying the Giants game proved it. Because it hasn't been proven. We have yet to see it. And hopefully, we are years away from seeing it. But....with an improved running game, Crayton continuing to get better, and Witten being Witten.... we'll be better prepared for it this year than we were last year. Is Owens the most important piece to our team? Maybe. One could easily have argued Ware and Romo were just as important last year. So choosing Owens isn't the problem. Its the reasons he gave.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 24 2008, 10:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How about Hester? Whatever success the Bears have had in recent years, a lot of it is attributable to his turning a game around with a return for a TD; or simply that when teams kickoff or punt, he's a scary threat.</div> I think he tried to restrict the list to players on playoff teams.
Gates more important than Westbrook? Hmmm. Chargers would still have had LT, Turner (and probably would have ran more). Chambers came over midseason and was solid. They'd stil have more weapons without LT than the Eagles without Westbrook.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 24 2008, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 24 2008, 10:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How about Hester? Whatever success the Bears have had in recent years, a lot of it is attributable to his turning a game around with a return for a TD; or simply that when teams kickoff or punt, he's a scary threat.</div> I think he tried to restrict the list to players on playoff teams. </div> Cleveland and Minnesota didn't make the playoffs last year.
I'm actually happy there are no Steelers on this list. Ben, Hines, Troy, Willie are all very important to the Steelers. There are a good amount to choose from for the Steel City Bunch.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jul 24 2008, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Gates more important than Westbrook? Hmmm. Chargers would still have had LT, Turner (and probably would have ran more). Chambers came over midseason and was solid. They'd stil have more weapons without LT than the Eagles without Westbrook.</div> I thought his reasoning for the Gates selection was a bit ridiculous. It was something like, "they had Tomlinson for a while but they only started to contend when they got Gates." Of course there was all the talent that was added to that defense and the emergence of Drew Brees/Phillip Rivers, but I guess that's irrelevant.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jul 24 2008, 11:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 24 2008, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 24 2008, 10:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How about Hester? Whatever success the Bears have had in recent years, a lot of it is attributable to his turning a game around with a return for a TD; or simply that when teams kickoff or punt, he's a scary threat.</div> I think he tried to restrict the list to players on playoff teams. </div> Cleveland and Minnesota didn't make the playoffs last year. </div> key word :tried, Minnesota and Cleveland were both better then the Bears
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jul 24 2008, 10:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 24 2008, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 24 2008, 10:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How about Hester? Whatever success the Bears have had in recent years, a lot of it is attributable to his turning a game around with a return for a TD; or simply that when teams kickoff or punt, he's a scary threat.</div> I think he tried to restrict the list to players on playoff teams. </div> Cleveland and Minnesota didn't make the playoffs last year. </div> Yeah, he tried to but obviously made exceptions to teams that he felt were borderline playoff teams or on the rise. I can see his justification for ignoring teams as weak as Chicago though.
Joe Thomas had a fine season, esp. for a rookie LT. 8th most important player in the league? Meh. This list looks and reads like a "hey, let me throw some big names out there." Though admittedly, I am somewhat impressed Haynesworth is included. And that Bob Sanders didn't make the list....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BasX @ Jul 24 2008, 10:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>i think he tried to make it one per team</div> Yeah, that's a stupid idea.
It might sound like Giants bias, but I think that if you're going to include Eli on that list, then he has to be higher than that. The Giants have been working without a competent backup QB ever since Kurt Warner left for Arizona and they've been lucky as hell that Eli's been a very durable QB (*knock on wood*). If you consider him the most valuable player on that team (I don't, but that's another issue entirely), then you have to acknowledge how f'd up they'll be without him.
One can have two incredibly valuable players on a team, that compliment each other quite well. So the premise of the list is messed up imo.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 24 2008, 10:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>One can have two incredibly valuable players on a team, that compliment each other quite well. So the premise of the list is messed up, imo.</div> That's unpossible. Sincerely, ESPN
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 24 2008, 11:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>One can have two incredibly valuable players on a team, that compliment each other quite well. So the premise of the list is messed up imo.</div> like Vintage said, it's ESPN what do you expect
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jul 24 2008, 10:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Joe Thomas had a fine season, esp. for a rookie LT. 8th most important player in the league? Meh.</div> In 2006, the Browns were 30th in the league with 54 sacks allowed. With Joe Thomas in 2007, they were 3rd in the league with 19 sacks allowed. That sounds like he's pretty important to me.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pack Attack @ Jul 24 2008, 01:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jul 24 2008, 10:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Joe Thomas had a fine season, esp. for a rookie LT. 8th most important player in the league? Meh.</div> In 2006, the Browns were 30th in the league with 54 sacks allowed. With Joe Thomas in 2007, they were 3rd in the league with 19 sacks allowed. That sounds like he's pretty important to me. </div> Huh. Wonder if signing Steinbach had anything to do with that too? Or, improvement in....say, the QB position. Or perhaps formulating some resemblence of a run game. Braylon Edwarsd breaking out, giving the QB someone to throw it to instead of biding time in the pocket? Unless, you want to argue that their LT the previous year was responsible for the difference in sacks by himself? Going from 54 to 19 means there was a lot of improvement - everywhere.