Peter King's All-Decade Team

frostie500 · 09-12-2009 1:56pm #1

I was on SI earlier and saw this piece. King picked his all-decade team. What does everyone think of it? A few deserving players were left out but mostly I was nodding away in agreement.

Obviously there is going to be agruments about Brady and Manning at QB, but I was shocked with Hines Ward at reciever. As good as Ward is(and King wanted to create a complete team as he says at the start of his article) but Harrison, TO or Tory Holt were all amazing this decade leading their teams to the Superbowl etc.

RB, FB, TE and O-line I would agree with.

On defence there some notable absentees-Strahan, Sapp(how is he not in it!), I'd have John Lynch at safety with Ed Reed for his ball hawking. I wouldnt have Winfield how about Charles Woodson, or Ty Law?

jdivision · 09-12-2009 3:11pm

I'm glad he put in London Fletcher who is unlikely to ever make a Pro Bowl but has been a beast for years.

RichTea · 09-12-2009 3:47pm

There is nobody better in the game than Peter King.

But, Michael Strahan and Warren Sapp should be there surely. I can see why TO isn't there with Randy Moss already fulfilling that sort of role for his 'complete team'.

eagle eye · 09-12-2009 4:39pm

Well for me it has to be Brady and its about winning it all, Manning hasn't been good enough in the playoffs.
Marvin Harrison has to be on that team and Hines Ward being ahead of him is laughable.
LT has been very, very good, but I'd have AP even though its only his 3rd year in the league.
I'll take Tom Nalen as the Center.
They are the ones that just stand out to me on offense immediately.

Si Conando · 09-12-2009 5:10pm

Disagree EE on AP over LT:)

LT was probably more statistically dominant in his position, over the full decade, than any other player on the team king chose.

Obviously AP has only had 3 years, so disregarding that, AP has already lost as many fumbles as LT in his career. LT has proven himself to be incredibly durable for a back(having only missed 2 regular season games in his career from injury), whereas AP has had some injury troubles, even this early in his career. I will admit that AP is as exciting a pure runner as ive seen, but he has had perhaps the best oline in the league for his 3 years. LT has also proven himself to be a great blocker, and one of the best receiving backs ever. His total scrimmage yards are immense, and his 150 TDs in 137 games isnt bad either:)

eagle eye · 09-12-2009 5:13pm

On the defense, Charles Woodson has to be there with Champ.
I was expecting to see Rodney Harrison there when I looked at it, but in fairness you cannot complain with Ed Reed he has been outstanding all his career and deserves that spot.
Pretty much the same as LT and AP for me with Brian Dawkins a great player but Troy Polamalu has just been outstanding since he came into the league and I'd have him over Dawkins.
As much as I love Mike Vrabel he does not deserve to be on that team, I'd have Julian Peterson instead of him.
Richard Seymour should be on that team also and Dwight Freeney in place of Kevin Williams and Aaron Smith.

And finally Devin Hester has to be the kick/punt returner imo.

frostie500 · 09-12-2009 5:17pm

eagle eye wrote: »

LT has been very, very good, but I'd have AP even though its only his 3rd year in the league.

Are you serious? In an all decade team you'd take Peterson over Tomilson? Whatever about Manning and Brady but there is no doubt that LT has been the most productive back in the NFL since he came into the league in 2001. He could do it all, run through the tackles, get to the outside and was a great pass catcher.
If youre only looking at players who only played some of the decade then you'd have to go for another player with 28 on his chest....Marshall Faulk

RichTea · 09-12-2009 5:30pm

Cannot believe that anyone would take Peterson over LT. It's an all decade team! Peterson hasn't enjoyed the same domination over a position that LT has.

With regard to the Charles Woodson thing, as much as I think he's been the best cornerback over the past few years, his career only really took off in the pros when he left the Raiders. His productivity increased dramatically since he joined the Packers. Definitely worthy of consideration though.

frostie500 · 09-12-2009 5:34pm

RichTea wrote: »

With regard to the Charles Woodson thing, as much as I think he's been the best cornerback over the past few years, his career only really took off in the pros when he left the Raiders. His productivity increased dramatically since he joined the Packers. Definitely worthy of consideration though.

The only other cornerback is Nnamdi Asomugha, who I cant believe I forgot about! He has to be in contention. He has been dominant for a few years now

eagle eye · 09-12-2009 5:37pm

LT has averaged 4.4 ypc over his career. Over 8 full seasons he has averaged 1476 yards per season.

AP is in his third year, over his first two full seasons he has averaged 5.1 ypc and averaged 1550 yards per season.

The figures will be even more in AP's favour after this season with AP already on over 1100 yards on the season, and LT on 561 and averaging only 3.3 ypc.

eagle eye · 09-12-2009 5:41pm

frostie500 wrote: »

The only other cornerback is Nnamdi Asomugha, who I cant believe I forgot about! He has to be in contention. He has been dominant for a few years now

Yeah he is a class act too, I'd have him just behind Woodson right now.

RichTea · 09-12-2009 5:42pm

eagle eye wrote: »

LT has averaged 4.4 ypc over his career. Over 8 full seasons he has averaged 1476 yards per season.

AP is in his third year, over his first two full seasons he has averaged 5.1 ypc and averaged 1550 yards per season.

The figures will be even more in AP's favour after this season with AP already on over 1100 yards on the season, and LT on 561 and averaging only 3.3 ypc.

Dominancy is more about just yards. LT was, without any question, the best running back in the league over a 6 year period. AP has been the best back in the league for two years, he's not even the best back now (Chris Johnson). LT's breaking records and his touchdown to game ratio set him apart if you're looking for statistics.

Best running back of the decade - no question.

eagle eye · 09-12-2009 5:42pm

RichTea wrote: »

Cannot believe that anyone would take Peterson over LT. It's an all decade team! Peterson hasn't enjoyed the same domination over a position that LT has.

With regard to the Charles Woodson thing, as much as I think he's been the best cornerback over the past few years, his career only really took off in the pros when he left the Raiders. His productivity increased dramatically since he joined the Packers. Definitely worthy of consideration though.

Woodson was a star at the Raiders, he got to 4 pro bowls while he was there.

frostie500 · 09-12-2009 5:49pm

eagle eye wrote: »

LT has averaged 4.4 ypc over his career. Over 8 full seasons he has averaged 1476 yards per season.

AP is in his third year, over his first two full seasons he has averaged 5.1 ypc and averaged 1550 yards per season.

The figures will be even more in AP's favour after this season with AP already on over 1100 yards on the season, and LT on 561 and averaging only 3.3 ypc.

I was doing a bit of digging and the only comparable time I can find is Earl Campbell in the 70's All Decade Second team. The NFL all decade teams all carry two running backs not like King's with only one. Campbell only played three years that decade but his numbers are suberb-7000 yards rushing, and he didnt get into the first team that decade with Hall of Famers ahead of him who performed consistently over the entire decade. AP is terrific over a three year period, LT has been great over the decade and will win out. As the above example shows though AP will get consideration for the NFL all decade team

eagle eye · 09-12-2009 5:50pm

RichTea wrote: »

Dominancy is more about just yards. LT was, without any question, the best running back in the league over a 6 year period. AP has been the best back in the league for two years, he's not even the best back now (Chris Johnson). LT's breaking records and his touchdown to game ratio set him apart if you're looking for statistics.

Best running back of the decade - no question.

I don't agree and tds to game ratio is pretty much irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, if you are going that way then you are saying that Mauric Jones Drew is the best back in the league for the last few years.

Edit: Just to be clear its an either/or thing as far as I'm concerned between those two, I just feel that what AP has done in three years is just remarkable. Barry Sanders is my all time favourite NFL player and I liken AP to him so much, so maybe I'm a bit biased because of that.

RichTea · 09-12-2009 5:57pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Woodson was a star at the Raiders, he got to 4 pro bowls while he was there.

He was a star but the remarkable productivity that he's now associated with only really started when he made the move to Green Bay.

In the 8 seasons he had with Oakland - Woodson had 17 interceptions. In the close to 4 seasons at Lambeau Field - Woodson has 26 interceptions.

8 seasons at Oakland - 8 forced fumbles. 4 at Green Bay - 8 forced fumbles.

The sacks, tackles (since they've been become statistics), pass defences, touchdowns etc all point to him reaching a new plane of productivity since joining the Packers.

He was a great corner at Oakland, he's somehow managed to become even better since moving to the midwest.

Royal Seahawk · 09-12-2009 6:05pm

I would have Brady in instead of P Manning. Sports aren't about stats, they're about winning trophies.
January is when it counts, not September, October, November or December.

Si Conando · 09-12-2009 7:07pm

eagle eye wrote: »

LT has averaged 4.4 ypc over his career. Over 8 full seasons he has averaged 1476 yards per season.

AP is in his third year, over his first two full seasons he has averaged 5.1 ypc and averaged 1550 yards per season.

The figures will be even more in AP's favour after this season with AP already on over 1100 yards on the season, and LT on 561 and averaging only 3.3 ypc.

You're disregarding every other facet of being a running back. LT is better at blocking, receiving and getting in the end zone. In his first 8 years he has averaged 1950 scrimmage yards a year, which is more than ANY other back in history.

Your part about TD to game ratio is something i agree with somewhat, but some of the things LT has been able to do around the goalline have been spectacular

Chucky the tree · 09-12-2009 7:53pm

Chris Johnson is a better running back the AP.

frostie500 · 09-12-2009 7:58pm

Royal Seahawk wrote: »

I would have Brady in instead of P Manning. Sports aren't about stats, they're about winning trophies.
January is when it counts, not September, October, November or December.

Cant really pick a undeserving one between the two can you though! Two things that I think will sway the voters on the NFL all decade team is that Manning has played two full seasons more then Brady and when Brady was injured last year the Pats didnt miss a beat with Matt Cassel at qb. As I said I dont think theres anything between them but Manning will probably edge it when the real voting is done

RichTea · 09-12-2009 8:11pm

frostie500 wrote: »

Cant really pick a undeserving one between the two can you though! Two things that I think will sway the voters on the NFL all decade team is that Manning has played two full seasons more then Brady and when Brady was injured last year the Pats didnt miss a beat with Matt Cassel at qb. As I said I dont think theres anything between them but Manning will probably edge it when the real voting is done

Exactly. If you looked at what quarterback means more to their team...it's gotta be Manning.

There are no wrong answers in choosing between Brady and Manning really.

eagle eye · 09-12-2009 8:17pm

frostie500 wrote: »

Cant really pick a undeserving one between the two can you though! Two things that I think will sway the voters on the NFL all decade team is that Manning has played two full seasons more then Brady and when Brady was injured last year the Pats didnt miss a beat with Matt Cassel at qb. As I said I dont think theres anything between them but Manning will probably edge it when the real voting is done

They went from 17-0 to 11-5, they failed to make the playoffs which they had succeeded in doing the previous five seasons with Tom Brady as starter.

Is that not missing an enormous beat?

davyjose · 09-12-2009 8:29pm

Royal Seahawk wrote: »

I would have Brady in instead of P Manning. Sports aren't about stats, they're about winning trophies.
January is when it counts, not September, October, November or December.

How many rings does Randy Moss have? In fact, take a look at the list there, and tell me how many rings do any of the players have. Tony Gonzalez? LT?

Seriously, there has to be a point where people stop handicapping Manning's incredible achievements week-in, week-out because he has only one ring.
I believe Brady is a phenomenal QB. One of the best ever. And if someone wants to argue away that he's better than manning in terms of ability, I have no problem, but bringing in the "rings" argument doesn't alone make him better. Brady today is a more impressive QB than the guy who won all those rings back then, anyway. So the argument doesn't even wash for that reason alone.

Also, there's no way peterson is the RB of the decade, I'm afraid. he might have a better Yardage per Carry, but i'd be interested to see what that number is when he's LT's age. Heck, he's not even the best running back in the league today, 3 years in, at what should be approaching the peak of his abilities.

davyjose · 09-12-2009 8:31pm

eagle eye wrote: »

They went from 17-0 to 11-5, they failed to make the playoffs which they had succeeded in doing the previous five seasons with Tom Brady as starter.

Is that not missing an enormous beat?

What'll they finish at this year? 11-5 is the best they can do, if they go unbeaten from here.

eagle eye · 09-12-2009 8:46pm

davyjose wrote: »

How many rings does Randy Moss have? In fact, take a look at the list there, and tell me how many rings do any of the players have. Tony Gonzalez? LT?

Seriously, there has to be a point where people stop handicapping Manning's incredible achievements week-in, week-out because he has only one ring.
I believe Brady is a phenomenal QB. One of the best ever. And if someone wants to argue away that he's better than manning in terms of ability, I have no problem, but bringing in the "rings" argument doesn't alone make him better. Brady today is a more impressive QB than the guy who won all those rings back then, anyway. So the argument doesn't even wash for that reason alone.

Also, there's no way peterson is the RB of the decade, I'm afraid. he might have a better Yardage per Carry, but i'd be interested to see what that number is when he's LT's age. Heck, he's not even the best running back in the league today, 3 years in, at what should be approaching the peak of his abilities.

Its not just the rings, its his playoff record.

Manning's postseason record: 7-7
Manning's postseason passer rating: 84.4
Manning's postseason comp%: 61.8

Manning's posteason opponents' winning percentage (regular season): .728

Brady's postseason record: 14-2
Brady's postseason passer rating: 88.5
Brady's posteason comp%: 62.7

Brady's postseason opponent's winning percentage (regular season): .779

Brady has put up better numbers, against better competition, and has won far more often. Brady is clutch, Manning is not. Thats what counts at the end of the day.

themont85 · 09-12-2009 8:51pm

eagle eye wrote: »

They went from 17-0 to 11-5, they failed to make the playoffs which they had succeeded in doing the previous five seasons with Tom Brady as starter.

Is that not missing an enormous beat?

How many wins do you honestly think the Colts accumelate without Manning? Matt Cassell has proven himself to be an okay QB but he walked into a team with not being a starter since High School. They still won 11 games. I don't see the Colts getting near that number minus Manning. They have something like 7 12 plus game winning seasons in a row mostly down to Manning. I'd have Brady in any other decade but not this one, Manning is a phenom as a franchise QB.

Suprised with Sapp and Harrisons exclusions. Personally whilst Randy Moss is a better player than TO I have to say I like TO over Hines. He has had numerous very good seasons with 3 teams (I'm leaving Buffallo till the year end where I think he'll end with okay numbers not great ones). If I want a team mate its Hines Ward/Harrison option but its kind of hard even if you hate TO to say he hasn't performed. He's been good everywhere, in multiple situation despite being an asshole.

/we should have a Manning/Brady stickied thread...

davyjose · 09-12-2009 8:53pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Its not just the rings, its his playoff record.

Manning's postseason record: 7-7
Manning's postseason passer rating: 84.4
Manning's postseason comp%: 61.8

Manning's posteason opponents' winning percentage (regular season): .728

Brady's postseason record: 14-2
Brady's postseason passer rating: 88.5
Brady's posteason comp%: 62.7

Brady's postseason opponent's winning percentage (regular season): .779

Brady has put up better numbers, against better competition, and has won far more often. Brady is clutch, Manning is not. Thats what counts at the end of the day.

I disagree. I think to assess someone's ability, you can't disregard their entire body of work. It's a team sport, and in most of the Play-off losses I've seen manning play in, he has not underperformed. But again, if you want to pin all the Pats success on Brady's shoulders, and all the Colts' relative lack of success on manning's, then you're argument to make Brady the QB of the decade is a poor one in my book.

And to say Manning is not clutch actually means you know very little about the man.

frostie500 · 09-12-2009 8:53pm

eagle eye wrote: »

They went from 17-0 to 11-5, they failed to make the playoffs which they had succeeded in doing the previous five seasons with Tom Brady as starter.

Is that not missing an enormous beat?

Bradys stat lines:
Year % yds TD int att
2001 63.9 2843 18 12 413
2002 62.1 3764 28 14 601
2003 60.2 3620 23 12 527
2004 60.8 3692 28 14 474
2005 63.0 4110 26 14 530
2006 61.8 3529 24 12 516
2007 68.9 4806 50 08 578
2009 65.7 4848 29 13 611***projection

Average:63.3 3901 28 12 531
Cassel : 63.4 3693 21 11 516
To give a fuller picture of how small the differences are between these stat line this one is done using a projection for Cassel with 531 attempts, Brady's seasonal average:
63.4 3801 22 11

I dont view his stat line to be an enormous difference to Brady's. The team went 11-4 in the games Cassel started and became one of only three teams to miss out on the playoffs after winning 11.

Bear in mind I'm not saying 'Cassel is nearly as good as Brady' just that Manning has been durable, prolific and in all liklihood Indy couldnt replace him with someone that would nearly match his career averages

eagle eye · 09-12-2009 8:56pm

themont85 wrote: »

How many wins do you honestly think the Colts accumelate without Manning? Matt Cassell has proven himself to be an okay QB but he walked into a team with not being a starter since High School. They still won 11 games. I don't see the Colts getting near that number minus Manning. They have something like 7 12 plus game winning seasons in a row mostly down to Manning. I'd have Brady in any other decade but not this one, Manning is a phenom as a franchise QB.

So then if you are saying that all them winning seasons are mostly down to Manning, then you agree that most of them losses in the playoffs are mostly down to Manning who is therefore not a clutch quarterback?

Morrisseeee · 09-12-2009 8:57pm

Lets forget about stats for a moment (they lie don't they:p) but I'm just wondering if you switched both QB's from their respective teams (years ago), would you reckon Manning would have won a few more SB's and would Brady have been as successfull ??

davyjose · 09-12-2009 9:05pm

eagle eye wrote: »

So then if you are saying that all them winning seasons are mostly down to Manning, then you agree that most of them losses in the playoffs are mostly down to Manning who is therefore not a clutch quarterback?

That makes no sense eagle eye. You know that.

look, I'm done with the argument. Manning game on game has for a decade, produced consistently brilliant football. Per game, his yardage and TD's are in a league of their own.
Brady has the greatest single season of all time, and an incredible Play-off record.

Take your pick. Either player would deserve the title as QB of the decade, but yeah, i'd have personally gone for manning.

Peter King's All-Decade Team

Comments