Boohoo, *only* listed as the 6th best player in the entire league? Total non-story.

Pretty much. Writers are bored, and we're all ready for football to start.

Players voted, from those I heard who actually voted, not many knew just what the peramaters were that they were supposed to follow.

Some voted on past performances, some voted on potential.


There were a hundred other reasons guys voted one way or another.

Doesn't really matter, hey if it makes that so-callec "chip" on Aaron Rodgers shoulder grow, only better for The Packers.

August can't get here soon enough!!

I'm actually looking foward to Pre-season games this year, gonna be a lot of talent on display at Lambeau!!!!

Who's above him?

If Joe Flacco's higher, I'm gonna barf.

I still look at it this way: Who would I rather have on my team? Adrian Peterson, or Aaron Rodgers. It's not even a question to me, it's Aaron Rodgers. I think many would feel that way. Therefore, how can Adrian Peterson be #1 and Aaron Rodgers be #6? It doesn't matter though, the list is a complete joke anyway.

They should do a Top 10 list at each position. Not a top 100. It would make it a lot easier. The top 100 is just to many players for a fucking list..

Even at that Rodgers would be #3


here was the top 5

5 jj watt
4 Tom Brady
3 Calvin Johnson
2 Peyton Manthing
1 AP



AND THIS IS HOW THE FANS HAD IT


5 Rodgers
4 Brady
3 Manning
2 Calvin Johnson
1 AP

The funniest thing to me is the best passing game in the last 2 years with the highest passer rating ever in 2011 and the 14th highest passer rating ever in 2012 had ZERO WRs in the top 100.

Even though they have had the leagues highest scoring WR in each of the last 2 years.

But Brandon Marshall got a lot of yards, so that is much more importat than TDs.

As I said, I wouldn't take ANY of those players over Aaron Rodgers, not even close. I can almost guarantee most teams wouldn't either. The only exception would possibly be Brady or Manning, so at least I could buy having some combination of Brady, Rodgers, and Manning in the top three. Anything else, is pretty laughable. If a team would actually choose Calvin Johnson, JJ Watt, or Adrian Peterson over Aaron Rodgers, well, they'd be freakin' stupid and should be fired and laughed out of town. An elite QB gives an NFL team in today's League the best chance to win, much more so than a JJ Watt, or especially Calvin Johnson. Even with a decent to good QB, Calvin Johnson hasn't done much to proper his team into a contender year in, year out. Adrian Peterson had a season for the ages last year, but I wouldn't expect that to happen again. It also had as much to do with the rest of the team as himself (e.g. a shitty passing game and no WRs). I would still take Rodgers season without thinking twice. I could care less about stats, I just want the best chance to win. In my opinion, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, and Peyton Manning would give me the best chance at doing so, in that order over the course of a full season.

I'd be willing to bet that at least 90% of general managers in the NFL would feel the same way.

Regardless, it's just a worthless list that NFL Network tries to suck every last 'drop' of ratings out of. The "Reaction shows"??? Give me a break. I only watch a minute of the program by mistake. Certainly not on purpose. NFL Network isn't much better than CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC. They are all about ratings and ultimately making money. Nothing else. I can't necessary blame them, they're running a business. It's not a charity or publicly funded. They really shouldn't care about much else. If actual news or factual analysis happens to intersect with achieving the best ratings, then that's great, but it certainly isn't the focus of such networks.

AP and Calvin Johnson flirted with all time records.

Manning had a comeback year, and would have been MVP as a result, if it wasn't for AP's historical comeback season.

As for Brady? meh.

JJ Watt maybe, just being that the Niners swept us.

I'm not gonna get all huffy about it. Whatever.

If Arodge wants to be #1 again, maybe he'll stop stat whoring and win another Superbowl.

That's the problem with the list. Everyone is using different criteria. Is it based on the best stats for a single season, or the best player in the NFL that gives their team the best chance to win games? Or all time performance? To me, it's the best player in the league, not the best stats. Who cares what kind of season Calvin Johnson had. What did it mean, ultimately? A shitty record and a top draft pick. Somehow the Vikings were able to win a good bit of games, and Adrian Peterson deserves to be very high, perhaps even number 2. But the purpose of the sport is to win games, and if I had to pick one player that would give me the best chance of doing so throughout an entire season, it would be Aaron Rodgers, without a doubt.



So by that logic, what the hell is Peterson, Manning, Brady, etc. doing in front of Aaron Rodgers? They certainly put up big stats and didn't win a super bowl last season. Often your posts reflect the intellectual capacity of a slow 4th grader.

Rodgers followed up the highest single season passer rating with the 14th highest. Leading the league both years.

The list is pure hype.

Tom Brady has all week to throw the ball.


Aaron Rodgers is lucky to get the snap unhindered

chile, please.

It these representatives of the cow-farmer-fan-base ever woke up and realized what they had if they only protected the sonofabitch, we'd really have somethin'.

imo






.

They'd probably have one of the greatest all-time offenses. You know, for the third year in a row. I don't even want to guess what the stats would be like, considering how insane 2011 was.

Aside from the issues mentioned above...consider that neither Jimmy Graham nor Randall Cobb made the list. Think if all the teams were drafting from scratch those two guys don't get picked in the first hundred? And there weren't many O-Lineman picked, either. How many teams would NOT pick a stud tackle or center in their first few picks? It makes for fun arguments but it isn't really a good list.

My opinion is the same as Dodd's as I posted on the NFL Network's Facebook page when the top 10 was announced. Minny would trade Peterson in a heartbeat for Rodgers. That fact alone tells me this list is wrong.

Yeah, or if there was a draft of all players in the NFL, how many general managers would actually pick Peterson, JJ Watt, etc. BEFORE Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, and even Peyton Manning, especially just for one season? I wouldn't even have to think twice about it. I know many other general managers would hope the teams before them drafted an Adrian Peterson over an Aaron Rodgers, though. There are always dumb ones.

But it's a list of the best players, not the one with the highest positional value.

Or, at least, that's the only reason I can think off that they put it together like this.

If you'd go by who's worth what to a team, you could make a pretty strong case for about 10 quarterbacks to be taken before AP.

It probably should be close to that, anyway. But then again, I don't highly value running backs, at least not in respect to a good-to-great QB. To me, having the best player at the most important position would be the absolute best case scenario, and the players competing for the best at that position should be at the top of the list.

Now if a list was based on raw physical talent, that would be a completely different story. But raw physical talent alone doesn't win many Super Bowls.