ESPN's All-Decade Offense

by Dane Noble on Jun 23, 2009 3:17 PM CDT Comment 42 comments

Tennessee_titans_v_chicago_bears_-8nxr1tigizm_medium

Yesterday, we saw that Brian Urlacher was the only Bears player to get featured on ESPN's All-Decade Defense. Today, they have released their All-Decade Offense. Before I clicked their article, I tried to see how many Chicago players could make the list, and I came up with the only name that ESPN did.

Center, Olin Kreutz: This was a three-way toss-up between Kreutz, Kevin Mawae and Matt Birk. All three players have been to six Pro Bowls.

The tiebreakers: Kreutz appeared in a Super Bowl with the Chicago Bears and more league personnel named him than Mawae or Birk.

"You look at a guy like Kreutz and you really appreciate his consistency," San Diego Chargers general manager A.J. Smith said. "He is an all-decade-type player."

The full roster is as follows:

QB: Tom Brady, New England
RB: LaDainian Tomlinson, San Diego
FB: Lorenzo Neal, Cincinnati/S.D./Balt.
WR: Marvin Harrison, Indianapolis
WR: Torry Holt, St. Louis
TE: Tony Gonzalez, Kansas City
T: Walter Jones, Seattle
T: Jonathan Ogden, Baltimore
G: Alan Faneca, Pittsburgh/N.Y. Jets
G: Steve Hutchinson, Seattle/Minnesota
C: Olin Kreutz, Chicago

What do you think of their list? Any other Bears player that you can think of? Did they get the positions right?

0 recs | Comment 42 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

i could rush for 1000 yards with this oline (in their prime of course)

T: Walter Jones, Seattle
T: Jonathan Ogden, Baltimore
G: Alan Faneca, Pittsburgh/N.Y. Jets
G: Steve Hutchinson, Seattle/Minnesota
C: Olin Kreutz, Chicago

and Orlando Pace doesn’t make it. That is saying a lot.

I was told that I ruined this house with my anger

by tempchad on Jun 23, 2009 3:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Now thats a badass OL

There is no infinity button for failing in sports. At some point, things turn. They always do. - Bill Simmons

by Allie on Jun 23, 2009 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

for real.

by sirus19x on Jun 23, 2009 9:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's nothing "all-decade" about the Bears offense.

Hopefully, their offensive woes have been fixed with their recent, under the radar acquisition.

"I'm not so mean. I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." - Dick Butkus

"Yeah, Moe, that team sure did suck last night. They just plain sucked! I’ve seen teams suck before, but they were the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked!" - Homer

by propheteer on Jun 23, 2009 3:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes, getting Kevin Schaeffer should turn us around.

If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.

by Just Dave on Jun 23, 2009 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice...

but I was referring to Josh Bullocks.;)

"I'm not so mean. I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." - Dick Butkus

"Yeah, Moe, that team sure did suck last night. They just plain sucked! I’ve seen teams suck before, but they were the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked!" - Homer

by propheteer on Jun 23, 2009 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How does he turn our offense around, maybe you meant Omiyale?

If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.

by Just Dave on Jun 23, 2009 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Link.

Be nice. Flag comments that you think are offensive. Use the "reply" button. Drink plenty of water. Compliment others. "Rec" comments and posts you like. Don't call people names. If you don't like someone's comment, attack the comment and not the commentor. Learn the difference in your/you're, then/than, to/too. Exercise. Relax. Stretch often. Find good in the world.

by Dane Noble on Jun 23, 2009 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uh, what are you saying? I don't get it.

If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.

by Just Dave on Jun 23, 2009 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He was being sarcastic.

Hence the link.

by Dane Noble on Jun 23, 2009 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sarcasm

but i messed up and named a bad defensive player.

"I'm not so mean. I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." - Dick Butkus

"Yeah, Moe, that team sure did suck last night. They just plain sucked! I’ve seen teams suck before, but they were the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked!" - Homer

by propheteer on Jun 23, 2009 5:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's twice sarcastic if you follow the thread.

If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.

by Just Dave on Jun 23, 2009 7:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rather thrice.

If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.

by Just Dave on Jun 23, 2009 7:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eric Peterman

will single-handedly turn this offense around.

"I'm not so mean. I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." - Dick Butkus

"Yeah, Moe, that team sure did suck last night. They just plain sucked! I’ve seen teams suck before, but they were the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked!" - Homer

by propheteer on Jun 23, 2009 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gaines could be huge

Wait. What?

There is no infinity button for failing in sports. At some point, things turn. They always do. - Bill Simmons

by Allie on Jun 23, 2009 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kreutz is a great selection

I don’t see where any other Bear player would have even been in consideration. I have no argument for any of the positions, but I think arguments could be made for Orlando Pace and some of the WR’s around the league. Randy Moss and T.O. (despite the fact that he’s a complete tool) both have been outstanding for a long time, but I don’t know that I would put them ahead of either of Harrison or Holt either.

by BearFan611 on Jun 23, 2009 4:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

On Moss and TO...

Moss doesn’t make it because of Oakland, and TO doesn’t make it because I think the media just doesn’t like him. Despite, the fact that in my opinion they are both hands down better than Holt and Harrison.

by chase17 on Jun 23, 2009 10:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kreutz is the only Logical Bears pick

He has been consistent and is a team leader and not to mention could probably kick some of the other guys’ ass if he had to. Kreutz is awesome and is one of my favorite players and I have his jersey.

by GallopingGhost on Jun 23, 2009 5:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

HMM

Kreutz= Possible HOFer??? i mean since he is the best center of his generation. i think one more probowl might ice it.

by Staleystan595455 on Jun 23, 2009 5:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Jay Hilgenberg still hasn't made it, and he was better than Kreutz IMO.

Very few O-linemen make the HOF, because they still aren’t appreciated by the voters for all they contribute. As the Bears know too well, a porous line kills your offense.

by BigGeorgeTX on Jun 23, 2009 6:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jays Hilgenbergs stats below, he certainly qualifies for the HOF IMO.

Career highlights and awards

    7 time Pro Bowl selection (1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991)
    7 time All-Pro selection (1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991)
    Starting center on the 1985 Bears

One of the best draft picks ever by the Bears. He was a UFA in 1980

by BigGeorgeTX on Jun 23, 2009 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No TO?

I’m sorry but I don’t care if he is a jerkoff, he is one of the best WR’s to play the game. I’d have him on there instead of Harrison. Not to take away from Harrison cuz he is one of the best as well, but there have been few WR’s that could take over a game as much as TO can.Ex. the Giants/49ers 2002 wild card game, overtime against Atlanta in 01’, and SB 39 against the Pats where he gained 120 yards on a broken leg. He’s a jerk but football is the game and he’s one of the best at it in the position.

Fans stuck in the 80's are lame. Respect the past, live in the now.

by maveric_87 on Jun 23, 2009 6:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Totally forgot

He belongs there before Harrison or Holt without question.

"I'm not so mean. I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." - Dick Butkus

"Yeah, Moe, that team sure did suck last night. They just plain sucked! I’ve seen teams suck before, but they were the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked!" - Homer

by propheteer on Jun 23, 2009 6:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Marvin Harrison is great

Isn’t he second on almost all the lists behind Rice now?

I think Owens belongs there over Holt, but not Marvin.

There is no infinity button for failing in sports. At some point, things turn. They always do. - Bill Simmons

by Allie on Jun 23, 2009 9:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Without question? Why?

On certain stats alone maybe… but I believe Holt’s time with the Rams makes him just as proven a receiver as Owens. T.O. could make his team better but, was notorious for having the tendencies of making them worse with his antics… Holt just made his team better. Having averaged over roughly 1200 receiving per season and helping the Rams to two Super Bowls, including winning one is… well… significant.

Owens has been in the league 2 1/2 (1/2 year = ‘05 injury) more years than Holt and they both have 9 seasons with 1000+ yards. Granted, Owens has a LOT more touchdowns, I never said he wasn’t a great player, but when it comes down to the Hall I think Holt will be voted in before Owens, NOT instead of Owens… mainly because of TO’s reputation as a teammate, not solely of their play on field. Both Great players, both Hall of Famers, but if any receiver of this generation belongs there its Torry Holt.

Now if you wanna “Without Question” something… Marvin Harrison, without question is a first ballot Hall of Famer.

by sirus19x on Jun 23, 2009 10:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

IMO only

You make a great point, but I think TO is/was better and should be ahead of him. The problem with his antics are that coaches/teams fostered his immature behavior by letting him get away with it. He never had a problem off the field; his ultra-competitive nature caused him to get too emotional at times, but I’d rather have too much than too little. As far as winning the SB is concerned, the Eagles didn’t win it cause of a lack of effort or production from him. Actually, it can be said he was the best player on the field not named Brady. Not only that, but doing it with a “bum” leg as well.

"I'm not so mean. I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." - Dick Butkus

"Yeah, Moe, that team sure did suck last night. They just plain sucked! I’ve seen teams suck before, but they were the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked!" - Homer

by propheteer on Jun 24, 2009 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No doubt...

T.O. kept the Eagles in that Super Bowl, bum leg and all. He has been a great receiver, one of the best statistically of all time. I truly believe if the media wasn’t so attracted to his every word he would not have gotten such a terrible reputation. You’re definitely right, he is very competitive and when he gets emotionally the media runs with it. That’s where I give OchoCinco some credit, while he and T.O. have a star quality to entertain (by there dances and what not) that draws them tons of unnecessary attention. Now Chad hides his emotions much better than T.O. So, while they are both lightning rods for the media, you don’t see the negatives as much from Chad. Now, granted, Chad isn’t known for throwing his QB’s under the bus… but the question remains (and this is rhetorical) if media wasn’t so drawn to Owens would we have heard all those things about McNabb, Romo, etc.? I’m sure all receivers have there moments of frustration towards their QB, but 1. no one is hounded by the media like Owens is and 2. most of them know how to hide there emotions (or shut up) when its necessary.

I can’t believe I just defended T.O. like that. LOL. So, after that… I can totally respect your opinion, because I believe he is a great performer also. Now IMO (which I’ve made before) is if I had to choose a teammate I’d pick a player like Holt over Owens, that’s all.

by sirus19x on Jun 24, 2009 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You said,“1. no one is hounded by the media like Owens is” Is it really hounding, if he desires the attention?

by rdent4hof on Jun 24, 2009 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sure. I guess the point I was running on, is sometimes the media might catch him saying something that they shouldn’t have heard, because he Always has a mic in his face. I may be wrong, but just watch for it this season. I mean, watch T.O. after a Bill’s loss, the media will surround him and they will all try to trigger a negative comment about Trent Edwards or the O.C. and out of frustration or just ignorance they might just get it. They want a headline and they feed off of him like vultures, because he gives them what they are looking for.

by sirus19x on Jun 24, 2009 12:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Understood.

I just wanted to see if you were gonna defend him again…. LOL

by rdent4hof on Jun 24, 2009 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

haha

T.O.’s my homeboy! lol… not exactly.

by sirus19x on Jun 24, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Harrison and Holt both have rings

which may be part of it. Also, him being an ass does play a part for the fact that he outright caused, or at the very least contributed to, the imploding of two teams with his stupidity.

"Well, we didn't block real good but we made up for it by not tackling."
- John McKay

by JerBear50 on Jun 24, 2009 1:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Manning>Brady.

Manning would have just as many Super Bowl rings with that Pats D, so don’t give me that argument. Manning’s numbers are other-wordly. Brady’s are too, but Manning’s are just better.

Also, Randy Moss is hands-down the most dominant force at WR in the past decade. He belongs over Holt, who benefited from a extremely pass-happy system.

by Poloplaya14 on Jun 23, 2009 11:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I am no Pats fan.

But that is a lousy argument. If Manning had the Pats D? Maybe if Tom Brady had, I don’t know, a couple all star wide receivers (before his run with Moss & Welker) or if he had a running back like Edge James or Joesph Addai he might have had 2 more rings. Too many IF’s for me. It’s not like the Colts didn’t get to playoffs almost every year and well, choked.

by sirus19x on Jun 24, 2009 6:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're the one using all the IF's my friend

In reference to Brady. If you look at Brady’s stats, you’ll see that in the days before hacing Moss/Welker, his numbers were not great. They were good, but not great. Manning has always put up stellar numbers even the last couple of years when Harrison’s been a non-factor.

Defense on the other hand, is an area that the QB has no control over. The Patriots defense had a lot more to do with those first 2 super bowls than Brady did. The Colts’ playoff chokes were all due to their D screwing up. Nothing to do with Manning.

by Poloplaya14 on Jun 24, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is no way in hell that Manning is better than Brady.

Brady was great without good WR’s for a while until getting Welker and Moss. It’s like saying Joe Montana was only good cuz of Rice, but people forget he was great for 5 years before Rice even got there and Dwight Clark was just an ok WR. Brady had 3 SB’s! Case closed.

Fans stuck in the 80's are lame. Respect the past, live in the now.

by maveric_87 on Jun 24, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Case not closed.

I think PM is a better QB.

by Dane Noble on Jun 24, 2009 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My IF's were to prove a point.

I don’t usually throw out “Now IF the Bears did this…” because frankly IF I could change the past then IF’s would matter. If you want to harp on the Pat’s D vs. the Colt’s D from the early 2000’s then your initial headings should be Pat’s D>Colt’s D.

Peyton Manning is one the best QB’s of all time, and I never said Tom Brady was surely better than Manning because frankly, I am not that good of an analyst. I don’t think anyone is or could be. I am sure who ever put that team together went back to the Super Bowl wins, Super Bowl MVP’s, and the single season passing record, and boom Brady has the advantage. If you re-read my post I said it’s a “lousy argument” to say that the Pat’s D is better than the Colt’s D so that’s why Manning is a better QB ( I know there was more too it), and frankly I was just playing Devil’s advocate.

But seriously, I think this is a Great argument and one most people won’t truely agree on. Kind of like who’s better Marino or Montana? Stats vs. Super Bowls? It’s tough but also the fun part.

by sirus19x on Jun 24, 2009 12:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I never said

Manning is better because the Pats D is better. You’re right that is ridiculous. People who argue Brady’s better than Manning usually say “he has 3 rings.” The point I was trying to make is that that argument doesn’t hold water since Brady had a much better defense.

by Poloplaya14 on Jun 25, 2009 12:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

not sure how many actually read the article, but here are some things to point out:

here’s how they figured it out…

Criteria included statistics, impact on the player’s team, Super Bowl wins/appearances and Pro Bowl berths.

…and all those other names discussed received a “honorable mention”

To fully appreciate the star of power of ESPN.com’s all-decade offensive team, consider who did not make the cut: Peyton Manning. Randy Moss. Orlando Pace. Terrell Owens. Will Shields. Antonio Gates. Larry Allen…They are Hall of Fame names and they didn’t make the cut. The decade has been that good.

Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear.

by windycity72 on Jun 24, 2009 12:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs