Six Huskers in ESPN's Top 150 Players of All Time

I'm guessing they will dip back in history a bit to grab a Red Grange, Jim Thorpe, Glen Davis, or other sepia-tone legends. None of these guys could hang athletically with the modern player (Jim Brown probably could) but I have no problem including players who popularized the game itself. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guy Chamberlin said:
I'm guessing they will dip back in history a bit to grab a Red Grange, Jim Thorpe, Glen Davis, or other sepia-tone legends. None of these guys couldn't hang athletically with the modern player (Jim Brown probably could) but I have no problem including players who popularized the game itself. 
Click to expand...
They could if they would have grown up with the training and nutrition technology of today.

 
BigRedBuster said:
They could if they would have grown up with the training and nutrition technology of today.
Click to expand...


Only 4% of American males were 6 feet tall at the turn of the century. By 1955 about 20% of the males were 6 feet tall. Only 3% were over 6' 2".  If they were great in their day, they were competing against the greatest of their day, but nutrition and medicine has moved relatively fast on the evolutionary scale. 

 
TGHusker said:
Expand that debate to figure the greatest teams ever.  It is just hard to measure different eras. 
Click to expand...
I think anyone fails when they try to compare if a player like Jim Thorpe would be successful against athletes of today....if you don't consider the training and technology available at the time.  Just think of how much more kids today play compared to back then and at what age they start.  Then figure in weight training and nutrition, film study...etc.  Then figure in the development of the game and offensive and defensive systems.

It's very difficult, but, I think you have to compare how dominant a certain player was against other athletes of his/her time compared to how dominant today's athletes are against other athletes.

That's the only way you can compare.

 
BigRedBuster said:
I think anyone fails when they try to compare if a player like Jim Thorpe would be successful against athletes of today....if you don't consider the training and technology available at the time.  Just think of how much more kids today play compared to back then and at what age they start.  Then figure in weight training and nutrition, film study...etc.  Then figure in the development of the game and offensive and defensive systems.

It's very difficult, but, I think you have to compare how dominant a certain player was against other athletes of his/her time compared to how dominant today's athletes are against other athletes.

That's the only way you can compare.
Click to expand...
agreed -  given the same advantages as today's players, those 'old timers' may excel in the same way now as they did then. 

Regarding the list, I was a bit surprised that Tommie Frazier wasn't a bit higher.  He has often been cited as the 'best pure College QB' - best fit for what his team does & needed to be successful. He wasn't the best passer or the best runner but overall what he did for our team and what he accomplished in playing in 3 NC games, winning 2 and being MVP in 3 makes him an outstanding college QB - judging him just for his work in college without a NFL bias to go along with it.

 
What ranking of tommie would have appeased most of you?  Maybe its just me but i feel like simply being included in the top 150 is enough of an achievement.  You could probably dig into the stats and make a compelling case for most of these players being ranked from 150-15.  Given the amount of players that suit up each year x schools x 150 years, its quite an accomplishment to say the least and no one should feel slighted!

Like it matters anyways, this board is going to go up in flames when Tim Tebow is ranked #1

 
Last edited by a moderator:
gossamorharpy said:
What ranking of tommie would have appeased most of you?  Maybe its just me but i feel like simply being included in the top 150 is enough of an achievement.  You could probably dig into the stats and make a compelling case for most of these players being ranked from 150-15.  Given the amount of players that suit up each year x schools x 150 years, its quite an accomplishment to say the least and no one should feel slighted!

Like it matters anyways, this board is going to go up in flames when Tim Tebow is ranked #1
Click to expand...
He was already listed. #76

 
Last edited by a moderator:
gossamorharpy said:
What ranking of tommie would have appeased most of you?  Maybe its just me but i feel like simply being included in the top 150 is enough of an achievement.  You could probably dig into the stats and make a compelling case for most of these players being ranked from 150-15.  Given the amount of players that suit up each year x schools x 150 years, its quite an accomplishment to say the least and no one should feel slighted!

Like it matters anyways, this board is going to go up in flames when Tim Tebow is ranked #1
Click to expand...
I agree that it is a great honor period just to be on the list- even at 97.  The QB spot is a very pivotal position and probably carries more weight than others.  I was thinking around 50 - give or take a few spots- if I was really generous top 35.  Others may have had more impactful single years.  However, his 4 year impact on NU had to be as impactful as any player on any program.  Yes, he had a great supporting cast around him - we were loaded then - but he was the puzzle that made it all work. Not many players get to play in 1 NC game and to play in and be MVP in 3 is a big deal. Plus his game against Florida showed  that he should have won the Heisman that year.  Tommie has his flaws - we all know about them. But as a pure on the field fierce competitor who accomplished a lot - there are relatively few like him.  Example: Who would you rather have at QB:  Tommie or - Doug Flutie who is # 28 - he racked up a lot of passing yards but is primarily remembered for one pass (yes depends on the offensive system).

 
TGHusker said:
I agree that it is a great honor period just to be on the list- even at 97.  The QB spot is a very pivotal position and probably carries more weight than others.  I was thinking around 50 - give or take a few spots- if I was really generous top 35.  Others may have had more impactful single years.  However, his 4 year impact on NU had to be as impactful as any player on any program.  Yes, he had a great supporting cast around him - we were loaded then - but he was the puzzle that made it all work. Not many players get to play in 1 NC game and to play in and be MVP in 3 is a big deal. Plus his game against Florida showed  that he should have won the Heisman that year.  Tommie has his flaws - we all know about them. But as a pure on the field fierce competitor who accomplished a lot - there are relatively few like him.  Example: Who would you rather have at QB:  Tommie or - Doug Flutie who is # 28 - he racked up a lot of passing yards but is primarily remembered for one pass (yes depends on the offensive system).
Click to expand...
Flutie is #28?  That list is rubbish.  I'd take Tommie over Flutie every single day and twice on Sunday.  Heck, I'd take Brooke over Flutie in Osborne's offense.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top