Kelce, Berry Named to 2010s All-Decade Team by Pro Football HoF

[Marco Polo]

EDIT: Tyreek and Mathieu were also named. I clicked too soon.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/p...nine-patriots/

Here are the 53 selections to the 2010s All-Decade Team:
Offense

WR – Antonio Brown, Larry Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson, Julio Jones
TE – Rob Gronkowski, Travis Kelce
T – Jason Peters, Tyron Smith, Joe Staley, Joe Thomas
G – Jahri Evans, Logan Mankins, Zack Martin, Marshal Yanda
C – Alex Mack, Maurkice Pouncey
QB – Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers
RB – Frank Gore, Marshawn Lynch, LeSean McCoy, Adrian Peterson
Flex – Darren Sproles
Defense

DE – Calais Campbell, Cameron Jordan, Julius Peppers, J.J. Watt
DT – Geno Atkins, Fletcher Cox, Aaron Donald, Ndamukong Suh
LB – Chandler Jones, Luke Kuechly, Khalil Mack, Von Miller, Bobby Wagner, Patrick Willis
CB – Patrick Peterson, Darrelle Revis, Richard Sherman
S – Eric Berry, Earl Thomas, Eric Weddle
DB – Chris Harris, Tyrann Mathieu
Special Teams

P – Johnny Hekker, Shane Lechler
K – Stephen Gostkowski, Justin Tucker
PR – Tyreek Hill, Darren Sproles
KR – Devin Hester, Cordarrelle Patterson
Coaches

Bill Belichick, Pete Carroll

[ThaVirus]

These lists are shit anyway. They really need to figure out the 3-4/4-3 DE and OLB designations. Also, what the **** is the "DB" designation? Flex is dumb as hell, too.

[smithandrew051]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

These lists are shit anyway. They really need to figure out the 3-4/4-3 DE and OLB designations. Also, what the **** is the "DB" designation? Flex is dumb as hell, too.

“Flex” kinda feels like a player who can do a little of everything, but isn’t great at anything.

My problem with that is you have players like Tyreek Hill or Antonio Brown that could be useful in a lot of ways. However, they’re used primarily as WRs, because they’re too valuable to lose to an injury. No need to take the risk having Tyreek return kick offs for instance.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Honestly, I'd rather have 10 games of Jamaal Charles and 6 of some scrub free agent than 16 of the 2010s version of Frank Gore.

In either case, I understand that most wouldn't agree given Charles lack of longevity and volume, but what's the argument for Gore over Matt Forte?

Forte was effectively done by 2016; he was a backup by 2017. So he was only relevant for roughly 2/3 of the decade.

So with Forte you get a combination of Gore's low floor and Charles' relatively short duration.

I would argue Gore AND Charles over Forte. At least both guys have strong arguments in a single direction. With Forte you have durability, longetivity and overall productivity. With Charles you have among the most electric and dynamic peaks in NFL history. With Forte you get none of that.

Regarding the '10 games of Charles, 6 games of scrub' - the issue is that A) that's not what you tended to get (way too many times you got effectively zero games of Charles) and B) you can't know when you'll actually get those games so it's hard to build around them.

Come post-season you knew you had Gore (and he was actually pretty damn good; people forget how critical he was to those Harbaugh teams that went to a SB and another NFCCG). With Charles, you oftentimes had him injured by the end of the season or, in the case of the Indy game, bounced out during it. When the Chiefs were trying to nurse him along in '14 and missed the playoffs by a game when they struggled down the stretch, well that should be considered. Or when he missed '15 and they were as good/better without him than they were with him.

There's just not enough credit given to dependability here, IMO.

[Demonpenz]

Gore checks all the boxes as chiefs fan. Works hard. Not flashy. Works everyday. Mostly reeruned.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Forte was effectively done by 2016; he was a backup by 2017. So he was only relevant for roughly 2/3 of the decade.

So with Forte you get a combination of Gore's low floor and Charles' relatively short duration.

I would argue Gore AND Charles over Forte. At least both guys have strong arguments in a single direction. With Forte you have durability, longetivity and overall productivity. With Charles you have among the most electric and dynamic peaks in NFL history. With Forte you get none of that.

Regarding the '10 games of Charles, 6 games of scrub' - the issue is that A) that's not what you tended to get (way too many times you got effectively zero games of Charles) and B) you can't know when you'll actually get those games so it's hard to build around them.

Come post-season you knew you had Gore (and he was actually pretty damn good; people forget how critical he was to those Harbaugh teams that went to a SB and another NFCCG). With Charles, you oftentimes had him injured by the end of the season or, in the case of the Indy game, bounced out during it. When the Chiefs were trying to nurse him along in '14 and missed the playoffs by a game when they struggled down the stretch, well that should be considered. Or when he missed '15 and they were as good/better without him than they were with him.

There's just not enough credit given to dependability here, IMO.

Blah. I was remembering Matt Forte as elite or at least semi-elite there for a while but maybe I'm remembering wrong. Outside of a couple seasons he was basically a 1000-1100 rushing yards a season kind of guy, though he definitely excelled in the passing game.

I definitely tend to underrate dependability but I just know that if Frank Gore was my RB, I'd have been looking to replace him for basically 60% of the decade and that just doesn't sit well with me.