Hawks have 5 players on the top 100.

[Hawknballs]

pretty obvious who they are:

Sherman
Thomas
Wilson
Lynch
Chancellor

irks me a bit that the Broncos have 9 players on the list apparently, and they said SF has the most players on the list, so they must have 10. So apparently 20% of the best players in the league are on the last two teams we beat to win the Lombardi.

Guess it goes to show you that team matters above all else. I suppose if they were doing these top 100 shows in the early 2000's when the Patriots won three superbowls, they probably wouldn't have had many flashy "top 100" guys either.

 

[Dietrich]

I'm okay with only having five on the list, it just shows how strong the rest of the team is. We've always known the Seahawk's strength is their depth.

 

[IBleedBlueAndGreen]

Great Team > Great Individual Players

 

[keatonisballin]

I don't understand how Bennett or Wagner aren't on the list. Hell even Avril and KJ.

 

[pmedic920]

Being talked about here.
viewtopic.php?t=93243#p1349282

 

[Basis4day]

I don't understand how Bennett or Wagner aren't on the list. Hell even Avril and KJ.

The players are the ones that vote and most of them tend to vote for players with name recognition or that they actually watched on film because they had to play them.

Peyton Manning was voted top 100 in 2011, despite not even playing that year. It's a flawed survey.

Here is a PFT article on the subject in 2013, so it's only accurate to that year:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... g-process/

 

[XxXdragonXxX]

The way they come up with this list is a joke. Hardly any players vote on it, and they only list 20 players each. Easy to see why the lust sucks every year. Some player puts Tim Tebow as his #1 as a joke, and he makes the top 100 with 1 vote (20 points) over someone like Bennett who may have been #20 on a 3 lists (3 points).

 

[Blitzer88]

Only 5..................really? Come on son.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Harvin?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Another week, another list. Doesn't matter, the 39ers can have their 10 guys. Hawks have 5 Superbowl Champions on the list.

 

[scutterhawk]

Obviously, between the 49rs & Broncos they have nearly 4 times as many outstanding players than the Seahawks.
It's just as obvious that the play of those 19 players aren't being maximized, and that with winning it all, the 5 Seahawk players on that list are playing TWICE as good as either of those two teams......and it showed. :mrgreen:

 

[brimsalabim]

Harvin?

hopefully he is top 10 on next years list.

 

[Hawknballs]

Only 5..................really? Come on son.

That's what they said on NFL network today (if the 'come on son' was implying that it was just my opinion/guess that only 5 were on it)

 

[kearly]

The 49ers have some good players, but I don't understand how they could have better representation than Seattle, much less TWICE the representation.

The only slam dunk top 100 players the 49ers have are Kaepernick, Bowman, and Aldon Smith. There are a few debatable guys they have after that, but no more debatable than about 15 players on Seattle's roster that didn't make it.

But what's really puzzling is Denver having so many. That is not a very good roster outside of a small handful of star players. The differential in roster strength between them and Seattle in the Superbowl could not have been more obvious.

I honestly thought that after winning 16 of 19 games, finishing #1 in DVOA, winning the best division and the best conference in the NFL, and blowing out Peyton Manning by 35 points in the big game would finally bring Seattle pretty close the respect they deserve. I guess not.

 

[Cartire]

The 49ers have some good players, but I don't understand how they could have better representation than Seattle, much less TWICE the representation.

The only slam dunk top 100 players the 49ers have are Kaepernick, Bowman, and Aldon Smith. There are a few debatable guys they have after that, but no more debatable than about 15 players on Seattle's roster that didn't make it.

But what's really puzzling is Denver having so many. That is not a very good roster outside of a small handful of star players. The differential in roster strength between them and Seattle in the Superbowl could not have been more obvious.

I honestly thought that after winning 16 of 19 games, finishing #1 in DVOA, winning the best division and the best conference in the NFL, and blowing out Peyton Manning by 35 points in the big game would finally bring Seattle pretty close the respect they deserve. I guess not.

Voting takes place the same time as ProBowl voting. That should answer all your questions.

 

[Cartire]

LoL. Nick foles at 70. All you need to know about the list.

And it's Kam this week for anyone that wants to know.

 

[BullHawk33]

I'm not sure if they change it up or not but they did a preview for next weeks and I swear I saw a direct photo shot of Unger on there. Teaser? Misdirection?

 

[Blitzer88]

Only 5..................really? Come on son.

That's what they said on NFL network today (if the 'come on son' was implying that it was just my opinion/guess that only 5 were on it)

No, the come on son was just a general remark for my disappointment. :th2thumbs:

 

[TwilightError]

I Like This disrespect. It feeds This teams hunger.

 

[brimsalabim]

I'm not sure if they change it up or not but they did a preview for next weeks and I swear I saw a direct photo shot of Unger on there. Teaser? Misdirection?

Last night they showed one of the DT's on the list working against Unger. Could be that is what you saw but only the players know for sure right?

Any way I figure that if we have 5 in the top 100 we must have 48 in the next 100.