The face of a franchise?

Question

on espn.com this month they've had something on their NFL page where you could vote for the best player in each team's history. as of today the votes have been tallied and each team's "franchise player" has been decided. but there are three of them that surprised me. first of all: marshall faulk was chosen for the rams, second: ladainian tomlinson was chosen for the chargers and third: derrick brooks was chosen for the buccaneers. my questions are: is marshall faulk really better than merlin olsen, deacon jones or "crazylegs" hirsch? is ladainian tomlinson really better than lance alworth, dan fouts or junior seau? is derrick brooks really better than leroy selmon, vinny testaverde or steve deberg. what are your thoughts on this?

Answer 1

Well, you would have to look at the ages of the people most likely to be voting on this web page.  Since the younger generation is more likely to be on the net.  It seems that is why you are getting more recent players then the older players.  Many people voting have not seen some if not all of the players listed by you.

Answer 2

marshall faulk and deacon jones, its a very hard decision, i would take jones, for the chargers its definetely LT he has a few years left and is in good shape for setting a new all time TD record, and i really disagree with brooks i would take selmon any day of the week

Answer 3

I think the big thing here is that most of the players you mentioned have probably never been heard of by the people voting! But in my opinion Faulk shouldn't have been. Tomlinson yes and Brooks yes. But that's my vote! haha

Answer 4

Have to consider that most voters never saw the old timers play,their vote is based on what they've seen lately,there are many players that should be mentioned ahead of the players that were chosen

Answer 5

What really doesn't make sense is that Matt Stover, a kiCKer, is the franchise player for the Ravens. It should've been Ray Lewis.