- Jason La Canfora NFL Network
Fullbacks are awesome, but ...
I've always been a big fan of fullbacks. I love their selfless nature, the willingness to do all the ugly things it takes to make others around them look better and help their teams win.
<table align="right" width="315px"> <tbody> <tr> <td> <content:static src="/widgets/custom/packages/latest_debates.html"></content:static></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> But when we're talking top 100 players overall, in an era with great quarterbacks and freak-of-nature athletes at receiver and tight end and edge rusher, I'm sorry, I just can't see even a [Pro Bowl](http://www.nfl.com/probowl) fullback like [Vonta Leach](/player/vontaleach/2505777/profile) on the list, much less as high as he is.
General managers will dictate the importance of a position by the spending. Look at where the big money goes; those are the assets teams covet. Fullbacks are fairly interchangeable for the most part, and it's hard for me to value them on a list like this.
- Steve Wyche NFL.com
Reluctantly, I'm picking McNabb
I hate to say this, but it's Donovan McNabb.
Before some of you start hitting me with his body of work argument or Hall of Fame argument or whatever argument, I'm going to hit first with this: If his peers took all that into account, then why was he ranked 100th out of 100? If his peers thought his reputation spoke for itself, why wouldn't he be ranked higher -- even after his bad 2010 season?
I like McNabb a lot. Good dude. He's had a lot of great years in the NFL. Hard to say anything bad about him, even though he could have built a better legacy with more clutch plays in moments of truth. However, there are a few other players who maybe should have gone in ahead of him if we're projecting "The Top 100 players of 2011." McNabb might not even be a starter.
I have a lot of arguments with the placement of a lot of players in the "Top 100" but not so much with the guys on the list -- even McNabb. It's just that if someone had to be bounced, I'd have to say it would be him.
- Pat Kirwan NFL.com
Leach over a QB? No way
- Adam Rank NFL.com
Players get snobby by including Leach
Having a fullback on the list was pretty bad, but having the show kickoff with Donovan McNabb at No. 100 made me check out pretty quickly. That was the moment when I knew this list wasn't going to be very compelling.
But I still go back to Vonta Leach. Why stop at a fullback? Aren't there more players in an obsolete position they could have voted for? Where did the best option quarterback land on this list?
See, I dislike music snobs who always try to show how smart and hip they are by being fans of bands that nobody has heard of. And it looks like the players were doing the same thing here, trying to show us common folk that we really don't understand the game and that Leach deserves to be in the "Top 100."
- Elliot Harrison NFL.com
McNabb has had great career but not 2010
For me, it's Donovan McNabb. As I understood it, the list was about the top 100 players in the league right now. McNabb has had a great career, but in 2010 he was benched for poor play.
When Rex Grossman and John Beck are being considered as your replacements, you know you've had a bad year. With that in mind, I just didn't see him as a solid choice, even at No. 100 on the list. Remember, making the top 100 means a player is in the top 6 percent of the league. Is McNabb in the top 6 percent of the players in the league? No. Top 10 percent? Still no.