Can you name the NFL 2000s ESPN All-Decade Team?

Can you name the NFL 2000s ESPN All-Decade Team? Enter a Player (last names acceptable) in the box below Correctly named Players will show up below Answers do not have to be guessed in order This game contributed by kraffcook on 11/19/2009 Source: ESPN.com This quiz has not been verified by Sporcle You have 5 minutes to guess after you click the button below.	Popular trivia games today Second 'R' Countries 28121 57 'A' Movies 22483 Weird Al Parodies 22458 Country Quiz: United States 12300 MLB Top 10 HRs (2000s) 10231 Double F Words 9262 '90s Music Without Lyrics 9234 And more...
Ready? Click to Start Enter Player: 0/27 Players correct	Time remaining:

Position	Player	Team
QB		NE
RB		SD
FB		CIN/SD/BAL
WR		IND
WR		STL
TE		KC
T		BAL
T		SEA
G		PIT/NYJ
G		SEA/MIN
C		CHI
DE		NYG
DE		MIA/WAS
DT		TB/OAK

Position	Player	Team
DT		CAR/NYJ
LB		TB
LB		BAL
LB		CHI
CB		WAS/DEN
CB		PHI/MIA/BUF/WAS
S		BAL
S		PIT
P		SD
K		NE/IND
KR		CHI
Long-Snapper		SD
Kick Coverage		PHI

Javascript is not currently enabled on your browser.
If you do have Javascript enabled:
This site uses javascript to make the magic happen.
Please turn on javascript and reload this page, or use a more current browser (like Firefox)

Tags: player, position, espn, team, all-decade, 2000, NFL

There are 72 comments for this game.
(Warning: comments may contain spoilers)

Twitter

Feed

	ElDavo:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 08:22 GMT	10 points
	I'm tired of the unending love the media has for Tom Brady. I know this shouldn't affect the quiz, and I didn't rate lower for this, but I feel that Peyton Manning is clearly a better QB than Brady.

	ElDavo:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 08:24 GMT	2 points
	Also, I like the hints you gave. Position was obvious of course, but I liked the addition of the teams.

	kraffcook:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 08:24 GMT	6 points
	I fully agree with you. I think Manning is a way better quarterback, but Brady has more rings, so the media considers him the best.

	Sporctastic:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 08:34 GMT	6 points
	Manning stats in the 2000s: 40,626 yards 301 TDs........Brady stats in the 2000s: 29,185 yards 216 TDs.

	FightinPhils08:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 08:35 GMT	1 point
	Cool game...but kick coverage...Mikell isn't even the best kick coverage on the team in the 2000s...he was good but Ike Reese was better

	kraffcook:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 08:38 GMT	0 points
	lol, if this was my list, it would def be Manning and Reese on there instead. Sadly, this is who ESPN picked though.

	nomuny12:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 08:38 GMT	1 point
	Torry Holt over Randy Moss? Really?! Urlacher is way overrated, London Fletcher would be there if he actually played on good teams. Troy Vincent? Really? If he was so great why would he be on 4 different teams? ESPN dropped the ball on this one, IMO.

	kraffcook:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 08:49 GMT	3 points
	I understand Holt over Moss. Holt was consistently good throughout the decade. Those 3 years Moss spent in Oakland basically killed his chances.

Comment below threshold: show it

	coelho4187:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 09:04 GMT	2 points
	Torry Holt is always underrated: if you want to know why he's here instead of Moss, look at Holt's stats with mediocre QB's (the guys who played when Bulger was injured/Garrard this year) vs. Moss in Oakland. Holt's catches/year this decade are 82, 81, 91, 117, 94, 102, 93, 93, 64, and 35 through 9 games in Jacksonville this year.

	bmo1616:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 09:38 GMT	5 points
	Just to add to the Brady-Manning debate, I would really like to have seen how Manning would have done with David Patten, Deion Branch, and David Givens, and how Brady would have done with Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne. There's a reason when as soon as Brady got a Pro Bowl receiver(Moss), he breaks all kinds of records.

	bmo1616:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 09:44 GMT	2 points
	And don't get me wrong, I think Manning would still have been great with those receivers, but don't compare stats when Manning had a HUGE advantage in receiver talent, not to mention a dome.

Comment below threshold: show it

	JohnJF:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 11:30 GMT	-1 points
	With all of the Manning vs. Brady arguments, how has nobody yet brought up that a quarterback who couldn't even start in college managed to light it up at the helm of the Patriots offense last year?

	kraffcook:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 11:48 GMT	2 points
	The argument though, is that Brady won even before the Pats' offense was so good that it could make a guy like Cassel look good. Brady won super bowls before Moss and Welker showed up and has put up Manning-esque numbers ever since he got these elite receivers.

	conroy:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 11:52 GMT	2 points
	People always say that Manning has great receivers but those receivers have always had Manning. Look what he was been working with this year and how good his numbers are.

	pita:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 16:45 GMT	-2 points
	Did ESPN actually pick a long snapper and kick coverage guy but no returners, or did you just leave them out??

	pita:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 16:47 GMT	-1 points
	By the way, this is one guy's blog at ESPN, so it's not like it's their well-thought out official ESPN team of the decade, not that those nitwits could do any better collectively.

	bmo1616:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 17:20 GMT	1 point
	@conroy, uhhh, he still has Reggie Wayne lol, and while Harrison and Wayne were running on a track surface for a decade, Brady's receivers were running through grass, mud, wind, and snow. All the playoff numbers go to Brady as well, so yes, Brady is the QB of the decade.

	mybeaglebelle:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 18:38 GMT	4 points
	@sporctastic; Indianapolis receivers; Wayne, Harrison, Gonzalez, Stokley New England receivers; Welker, Moss, maybe Troy Brown. Brady has been better since he got actual receivers. Manning has ALWAYS had Wayne and/or Harrison. Stokley and Gpnzalez aren't half bad, either. Who else has Brady had? Reche Caldwell, David Patten, Troy Brown, and Joey Galloway. Plus Brady has 3 super bowls. How many does Manning have? Oh yeah, 1. Tht doesnt even count because the Bears were horrible that year, along with the entire NFC.

	bones21:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 18:49 GMT	-1 points
	A couple points. First of all, Manning is clearly a better QB than Brady. Its just all the Boston-loving media and it makes me puke. We all saw what a mediocre QB could do in NE's system. Take Manning away from the Colts and it would be a disaster. The guy is basically the coach of that team. Also, Kenechi, you obviously haven't seen much of Mike Scifres. Watch him sometime. He is amazing. He just gets screwed out of the Pro Bowl every year because Lechler has a slightly better avg. Lechler of course has a full field to punt in front of due to the inept Raider offense, so he just kicks it as far as he can. Scifres routinely sticks balls inside the 10 and has a better net avg.

	Sporctastic:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 19:24 GMT	1 point
	I'd also like to point out, if we are giving Brady the nod because of the rings, that in 2006 Brady fell to the mighty arm of Manning in those very playoffs. And mybeaglebelle, I think that counts more than 2/3 Brady Bowls because the Patriots-Colts championship game basically was the Super Bowl that year.

	NCBerge:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 19:40 GMT	1 point
	@JohnJF: Are you seriously trying to infer that the 2008 Patriots offense was as good as the 2007 or 2009 one? Also, Brady and Manning are both good selections. It is a matter of what matters most: Super Bowls or in-season numbers. Brady has won 3 Super Bowls and led a clutch drive in the fourth. Manning only made one Super Bowl and did not play particularly well. Manning is a better regular season QB, though.

	NCBerge:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 19:44 GMT	1 point
	@mybeaglebell: That Bears team was very good. They only lost two real games the whole year (I am not counting the Week 17 loss where they benched their whole defense). One of those losses was to Brady's Patriots. However, it was AN EXTREMELY CLOSE game in New England. So, if those Bears stunk, then New England must have too.

	sox_fan1468927:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 20:05 GMT	1 point
	JohnJF: "how has nobody yet brought up that a quarterback who couldn't even start in college managed to light it up at the helm of the Patriots offense last year". How did Cassel light it up? He threw 21 touchdowns and 11 interceptions while Brady took that offense and threw 50 touchdowns and 8 interceptions. He has more touchdowns and fewer interceptiosn in his first 8 games with this terrible KC offense than he did in his first 8 games with that dynamic Pats offense last year.

	kraffcook:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 20:27 GMT	1 point
	@Pita: Woops, guess I did forget to add the KR. I'll add him now. And this is not one blogger's picks. The ESPN staff voted collectively on this just like they do for other awards and honors on their site.

	bmo1616:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 20:55 GMT	3 points
	@Sporctastic, are you really that dumb? Or did you just forget the Manning lost to Brady not once, but twice in the playoffs. And one of those playoffs games Manning was held to 3, that's THREE, points. Don't even bother trying to compare playoff stats in favor of Manning, cause you will sound foolish.

	indyjeff:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 22:48 GMT	1 point
	Ah, I just read the comment that said that the kick returner was recently added to the quiz. I was trying to figure out how he had a lower percentage than all of the offensive linemen.

	Eagle3:	Nov 20th, 2009 at 23:33 GMT	0 points
	If you throw the stats away, Manning does more on the field than anyone in the NFL. The only one that compares to him is Polamalu on defense because he is always all over the field. If you put a bunch of equally good college receivers on the teams of Manning and Brady, Manning wins. He is the head coach of that team, besides Jim Caldwell. This year he only has two weapons: Clark and Wayne(maybe Addai) and look how good he is doing. He has done this every year with double the weapons that he has now. I think you judge a quaterback by how well he leads his team. Say Manning played a game with the Patriots offense and Brady played a game with the Patriots offense against the same defense. Manning wins because of how he leads his team and how he can determine what the defense is going to do before his own coaching knows what they are going to do. Manning is better despite only 1 ring.

	raiders:	Nov 21st, 2009 at 00:04 GMT	3 points
	I know its just the punter, but there is no way Scifres is better that Lechler from the Raiders or Moorman from the Bills

	kraffcook:	Nov 21st, 2009 at 02:09 GMT	1 point
	Lechler and Moorman are all power. They're only well-known because they boot the ball farther than most guys. Scifres though, had power and incredible accuracy. He's probably one of the best Punters ever at putting it down inside the 10. Lechler and Moorman just kick alot of touchbacks

	mintyginty1:	Nov 21st, 2009 at 02:26 GMT	-1 points
	http://www.sporcle.com/user/mintyginty1/contributed

	otarmy:	Nov 21st, 2009 at 02:50 GMT	1 point
	Shane Lechler is better than Mike Scifres no doubt. Stupid ESPN

	el_barto:	Nov 21st, 2009 at 04:13 GMT	3 points
	Not to take anything away from Polamalu, but Brian Dawkins is much more deserving.

	jburke:	Nov 21st, 2009 at 04:39 GMT	1 point
	I take it these teams played for aren't current through this season? Torry Holt is now on Jacksonville, and Tony Gonzalez is playing for Atlanta

	kraffcook:	Nov 21st, 2009 at 05:15 GMT	1 point
	The list was made before this season started, so it only takes into account how the players performed before this year. Therefore, it only refers to Holt's time in St. Louis and Gonzalez' time in KC

	Spinksy:	Nov 21st, 2009 at 06:19 GMT	2 points
	Got to agree with el_Barto, I reckon Dawkins is definitely worth a place on this team. Not only was he brilliant in his own right he led/inspired/carried one of the most exciting and best defences in the Eagles under Jim Johnson.

	bigdan245:	Nov 21st, 2009 at 07:49 GMT	0 points
	did they seriously include the long snapper? i mean seriously

	Sporctastic:	Nov 21st, 2009 at 08:39 GMT	1 point
	Statistics Part Deux; Playoffs: Brady- 3217 yards, 20 TDs. Manning 3495 Yards 18 TDs. Very close I would say. (I'm not going to mention their playoff win-loss records, statistics can be deceiving if you just give the right ones ;))

	kraffcook:	Nov 21st, 2009 at 08:55 GMT	1 point
	@Sportastic: Yeah, but how many games did each of them play? Those stats mean nothing if one of the QBs has played far more playoff games