2019 early predictions sure to go wrong

This is a very good point. This whole "elite" discussion started by talking about wide receivers. There are, on the average, three times as many WR's than LT's. More often than not, an individual wide receiver's status as "elite" is determined by how well do the other two WR's on his team play. The only way to dissect that is to break them down into WR1, WR2 and WR3 (slot) and then ask the question: can a slot receiver be "elite"?

IMHO, if one goes that far, they have already diluted the term "elite".

 

So let's say there are 15 left tackles worthy of being a Pro Bowler or All-Pro.

Are all 15 elite?

Or are there 3-5 of them that are clearly better than the rest...even though the rest are very good....but those 3-5 are elite because they are definitely better?

 

I completely agree.

I think elite becomes an overused word.

Alshon Jeffery is definitely a #1 receiver. So is Allen Robinson. Mike Evans and TY Hilton are #1s. But none of them are elite.

 

Putting everyone elected to all pro teams makes way to many guys elite. Im sure many will disagree but a guy can be very good and may even be one of the best during the time he played but that doesnt make him elite.

 

In the 70’s you had
Joe Green, Randy White, Alan Page, Merlin Olson, all were all-pro multiple times, all are elite. I’m sure If we looked up other players at DT we would find more during that period that were elite. There are times when a position can have more elite players just because the rules favored that position at the time. Like in the 70’s you couldn’t hold at all so defensive players had an advantage towards being elite at the time. But now oline can legally hold as long as he keeps his hands inside so the advantage swings to the oline. So different eras can easily influence which position has more elite players at it.

 

I tend to think that:

• If a player (at any position) is truely elite, then there are probably 31 GM's around the NFL that would consider that player as an upgrade over the player they currently have.
• Truely "Elite" players typically demonstrate they are better than their peers over a period of consecutive seasons. This would eliminate the one hit wonders that just happened to have a very good year.
• Lastly, a player's team's results should have nothing to do with it. Example: I cant think of many people that didn't think Joe Thomas wasn't an elite LT. Yet he played for a team that redefined the term "suck" but he played at that level every single year he was in the NFL.

 

Let me throw out a name from my team: Darren Woodson.

5 consecutive Pro Bowl appearances
3 consecutive First Team All-Pro
3x Super Bowl Champion

Elite...?

 

I get that but I think once you go over a certain number of guys at one position....the word elite loses value. Even among the players that play at an all-pro level....you can separate the really good from the truly great.

Phillip Rivers is really good.....Drew Brees is truly great....Tom Brady is immortal and legendary. All are gonna be HOFers. But they aren't equal.

 

I think this is spot on.

 

That's....a hard one. My initial reaction was to say yes because he was as good at anyone when it came to tackling in the open field and causing fumbles. But he also played at the same time as some other great safeties that may rank ahead of him.

 

But what’s the number. The four DTs I listed are unquestionably elite. They all played at the same time relatively.

 

Whatever the case....this is a really good conversation.

 

Good question....I don't know what the number would be. Maybe it varies by position? Or maybe it doesn't. Maybe there doesn't need to be a set number. I just think if there's not....it devalues the word elite.

In baseball...there are a ton of really good first basemen right now. So many that at least 6 guys won't be allstars each season that definitely should be. How many of them can we call elite though?

 

Very good? Yes.
Elite? Probably.

Two of the three reasons you gave don't hit the gong for me. Pro-Bowl appearances (in my book) don't mean diddly squat and 3x Super Bowl Champion is a TEAM statistic. The one that does carry some weight is that he was a three time 1st team All-Pro. I'm also pretty sure that most, if not all, of the other 31 GM's in the league would probably want him on their roster.

 

I tend to think there doesn't have to be a set number. Someone earlier on here intimated that in some years/clusters of years, you could have a 3, 4, 5, 6 elite players at a certain position; other groups of years, you could have none, or one.

Look at say the mid-90s. At QB in 1994 you had Steve Young, Brett Favre, John Elway, Troy Aikman, Warren Moon, Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, and Joe Montana. Is considering EIGHT players at one position diluting the word "elite"...? To me, not in this instance.

 

Absolutely. And if you had a team with 22 Woodson-caliber players, you'd lose very few games.

 

But me personally.....I'm ranking Favre, Marino, Montana, and Elway ahead of Young, Aikman, Moon, and Kelly.

So while all 8 were obviously really good or great.....I personally think some were better than others are I'd say those first 4 were the elite and the second 4 came in behind them.

Extremely debatable take there.

 

You might not lose any....and there'd be a lot of injured players on the other side because Woodson could hit.

 

Moon would be last on my list of those eight. But I would say that they are all elite.

 

This is precisely why it gets a little dicey when determining if a player is elite. In 1994, there were only 28 starting QB's in the NFL. To consider 8 of them (28.6%) elite definitely dilutes that distinction.