They began the countdown last night with 91 through 100. The Chiefs got their first entry with Schwartz at 94. How many Chiefs make it this year? Hill should make it, but will he be excluded due to the BS that was hanging over his head most of the off-season? Mahomes should be number 1. Kelce should be ranked pretty high. Frank Clark and Honey Badger both make it I would think. Chris Jones is another. Anyone else?
94 Mitchell Schwartz
85 Frank Clark
36 Chris Jones
21 Travis Kelce
19 Tyreek Hill [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
Chiefs Fan really doesn't like Ford, for whatever reason. The guy is an elite pass-rusher, though, whether or not we want to admit it.
So is Frank Clark, only Frank is better against the run too.
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
Chiefs Fan really doesn't like Ford, for whatever reason. The guy is an elite pass-rusher, though, whether or not we want to admit it.
The dude has elite speed. He has one move and that’s it. He’s terrible against the run. To top it all off, he’s a freaking mental midget.
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
I did, but the comparison just isn't there.
Shields never missed a game (224!). 12-time Pro Bowler. 2-time first team All-Pro. An anchor on one of the greatest OL units of all time.
I feel like most people would agree Will Shields is a top 10 G of all time. He's top 15 at the very worst.
Is Schwartz even a top 25 T of all time? Top 50?
Joe Thomas was better than Schwartz has ever been though.
Of course there is a difference between RT and LT so I think that is a bad comparison and not fair to any player at either position.
Schwartz has not missed a single game his entire career either (112).
He was a 1st team All-Pro last season.
Unless something bad happens I think he would have a very realistic shot at making the HOF. It sure won't help when he gets a couple of SB rings over the next few seasons. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chief Roundup:
Of course there is a difference between RT and LT so I think that is a bad comparison and not fair to any player at either position.
Schwartz has not missed a single game his entire career either (112).
He was a 1st team All-Pro last season.
Unless something bad happens I think he would have a very realistic shot at making the HOF. It sure won't help when he gets a couple of SB rings over the next few seasons.
Originally Posted by raidersnumber1:
More like the Top 100 players of 2018.
Guaranteed half these guys won't actually be the top 100 players in the 2019 season.
This list should come out at the conclusion of every season, rather than at the beginning of the next season.
This list is released to feed an appetite for a product, not to be a definitive ranking. If it were released right after the season, people would be sated already. A late July, early August release and airing primes people for the preseason. [Reply]
Originally Posted by raidersnumber1:
More like the Top 100 players of 2018.
Guaranteed half these guys won't actually be the top 100 players in the 2019 season.
This list should come out at the conclusion of every season, rather than at the beginning of the next season.
Thank you captain pedantic.
Good lord, who cares? It's the 'top 100' heading into the 2019 season. It's just something they do during training camp to get fans excited for the season. Stop trying to wax profundity on a goofy top 100 list. Your loser Raiders won't be any higher after the turd they lay this year. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chief Roundup:
Of course there is a difference between RT and LT so I think that is a bad comparison and not fair to any player at either position.
Schwartz has not missed a single game his entire career either (112).
He was a 1st team All-Pro last season.
Unless something bad happens I think he would have a very realistic shot at making the HOF. It sure won't help when he gets a couple of SB rings over the next few seasons.
The difference is shrinking.
Not sure if you've noticed, but LT's don't ALWAYS block the best pass rusher anymore. We're gonna need schwartz as long as Von Miller is lining up on that side. [Reply]
