Kings and can't-dos

Earlier this week, in reviewing a Jack Del Rio radio appearance, I hear him say this:

"I think people are so quick. They either want to make somebody king and the greatest ever and somebody else is not good enough and never will be. And I just don’t think that’s the way it works in sports. I think you get a chance to go out and compete. I think the NFL has proven that this is a league where you can turn yourself around or teams go from last to first all the time."

He couldn’t be more right. The longer I’ve been around the league, the slower I’ve been to judge -- because it’s easy to look dumb for making a proclamation too soon. That’s why no matter your pleas, I am not going to call Fili Moala or Jared Cook a bust, and I am not going to anoint Terrance Knighton or Glover Quin the next great thing quite yet.

I thought JDR’s comment was a good starting point for a team-by-team conversation here: Who’s too often rated a king and who do we tend to label as not good enough and never will be?

I didn’t fit people into these categories as easily as I thought I would, so I open it up to you.

But I don’t seek a most overrated/underrated list. I want unfair reputations that we’ve put on people -- a guy who’s a king that maybe isn’t worthy of the status and a guy who’s “not good enough” who we might be judging too quickly.

I’ll sort through your answers here and in the mailbag next week and revisit this.