PDA

View Full Version : What would it take for Ben to be Pittsburghs best QB ever?



Stairwayto7
05-24-2008, 06:38 PM
Not every team has this problem. Would Ben have to win 4 Rings to be crowned the best QB in Steelers history? He could definitley have better career stats, Bradshaw didn`t throw as much. But Bradshaw has the rings. Now many Qb`s have that to compete with.
Joe Greene, and Jack Lambert will remain on the Steelers all-time list forever, Bradshaw you would think should be safe with 4 Superbowl titles and two SB MVP`s.

Also did Aikman over take Staubach as the best ever in Dallas history.

K Train
05-24-2008, 06:40 PM
i think hes got that **** on lock if he plays like he did last year, the game is harder, faster and more equal now days. 4 rings in the 70s is like 10 rings now imo

Blitzburgh55
05-24-2008, 06:49 PM
it would take 5 rings

K Train
05-24-2008, 06:53 PM
it would take 5 rings

and yet hines ward is gonna walk away being widely regarded as the best steeler wr ever....doesnt seem fair to me

BlitzburghRockCity
05-24-2008, 07:00 PM
It's not going to take 5 rings to do it because he will never be regarded as the best QB in Pittsburgh history. If he continues to improve and play on or above the level he played at last year he'll be regarded as a great QB mentioned in the same breath as Bradshaw. The debate will go on forever as to who is better regardless of the final stats when Ben retires because they are from 2 different eras. Terry will always be the iconic Quarterback in Pittsburgh, the house hold name that generation after generation will always know about but Ben has the chance to win a few more rings during his career and continue the tradition. The label as the best QB can be at best "shared" between Ben and Terry but it's an awful tall feat for Ben to take that title away regardless of how many rings he helps the team win.

K Train
05-24-2008, 07:08 PM
because he will never be regarded as the best QB in Pittsburgh history.

yeah just wait til all of you that were alive for the 70s are dead and we are the old people....we'll see then lol

Black@Gold Forever32
05-24-2008, 07:28 PM
Interesting question....I respect Terry Bradshaw and he was a great QB that always played huge in the big games......But Steelers Fans (Especially The Older Fans) over-rate him greatly......I just think Terry had a ton of help around him....The Steelers team in the 70s was loaded....So many Hall of Famers were on those teams.....Many QBs could have won multiple Super Bowls with that type of talent....I don't think Dan Marino would be ring less with that type of talent around him...lol

Yes the Steelers didn't pass much in Terry's stats which hurt his overall stats...But still his plus 2 TD/INT ratio isn't great.....212 TDs to 210 INTs.....What made Terry great was his play in the big games...But then again.....there was also Franco Harris and Rocky Bleier in the backfield with Terry....The WR's were Swann and Stallworth.....Not to mention the great defense of the Steel Curtain.....

I know it takes a team to win and a QB can't do it by himself...But Terry might have the greatest talent ever around him.....Yes Joe Montana had talent around him also but I think talent wise the Steelers of the 70s had 49ers of the 80s beat....Peyton Manning has had great talent around him on offense so thats why I never felt sorry for him when he choked...lol But the Colts never had that talent on defense like Terry enjoyed....

As for Ben....If he breaks all of the Steelers major passing records and wins 1 or 2 more Super Bowls then I think he could be mentioned as the greatest QB in Steelers history....Yes before any of you older fans come at me...I know Ben had a very good team around him also...But Terry sucked his first 4 years in the NFL while Ben did play well early on in his career....Yes I know Terry was on some very bad Steelers teams his first years in the NFL....But even in 1974 the Steelers first Super Bowl year...Terry still had a bad year...lol

I can't wait for the older fans to be butt hurt...lol

K Train
05-24-2008, 07:44 PM
lol this could get funny




and lets not forget kordell

ejsteeler
05-24-2008, 07:52 PM
K Train, you're too funny...

TG, you hit it on the head, for the most part, but I think if Ben can put together a few rings with the black and gold, it would be hard not to crown him. With all that, please keep in mind I am one of the old ones K trian is talking about and am a huge TB fan. We'll have to wait and see. :yellowthumb::cope:

SteelersWoman
05-24-2008, 08:34 PM
If Ben had played with all those guys in the 70's, I can't even imagine how many more rings they might've had--whereas you put Terry in with the kind of team we had (say last year) I really don't think Terry could've pulled off a 104 QB rating and been second in the league.

If you put them in each other's shoes, I think Ben would come out on top.

BlitzburghRockCity
05-24-2008, 09:29 PM
The media may be able to consider crowning him the greatest QB ever if he wins a couple more super bowls, makes more pro bowls, continues to be among the leaders in QB rating, etc. but the hardcore fans of Pittsburgh will have a tough ever naming anybody the greatest QB ever in Steelers history unless his name is Bradshaw. Ben definitely already has a place in Steelers history as being the guy that lead the team to that elusive one for the thumb. Even if he were to retire tomorrow he'd still go down as a legend in Steelers history.

Personally I think he's got a great shot of shattering every team record for a QB and an offense in general a few times over during his career in the black n gold and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see him win atleast 2 more SB's before it's all said and done, maybe 3, IF everything comes together and he stays healthy, etc. There's a lot of time left for him to make that mark and stake his claim to the title, and so far so good for Big Ben.

steelcityrockers
05-24-2008, 09:39 PM
This is in terms of pure play at the position right?

Ben needs to have a few more good years, just so he has some tenure.

TB is one of the most overrated players ever it seems.

He was not as Godlike as some put him out to be. Like BG32 said, a plus Two TD/INT differential is not very good at all. He had a 77.0 (correct me if I am wrong) carer Rating. That is a little below-average (Avearge is about 79/80ish.) 210 INTs is pretty bad. I don't know is career completion % off the top of my head so I won't say anything aout that.

Ben does play in a more pass-friendly era.

He would still destroy Bradshaw's records with the team TB had. Much better decision maker (again, look at the INT's) and more accurate.

That being said, I think the best Steler QB ever is either
a)Johnny Unitas (he was at one point a Steeler)
or
b)Neil O'Donnell...yes I am joking.

In 5 years, it will be Ben...no contest.

MDSteel15
05-24-2008, 11:44 PM
Terry Bradshaw is the best ever and should be for ONE reason, he called all the plays on the offense. Ben only makes calls when he audibles a call in from the sidelines. Ben will eventually be the best statistical QB in Steeler history. How can you take that away from TB when he was the play caller? :2cents:

K Train
05-24-2008, 11:51 PM
funny you should bring that up. offenses back then were extremely primitive compared to today. I remember ron jaworski saying he was talking to terry, picking his brain alot and taking about reading defenses and jaws annoys but hes very knowledgable about the game, the schemes, the concepts and he basically said bradshaw was retarded when it came to that part of the game, he called the plays and threw the ball, couldnt read a defense to save his life and it really didnt matter cause he had so much talent and so many options around him and a suffocatin defense to bail him out. Ben could call....run left or deep post lol

SteelerDan43
05-25-2008, 12:30 PM
For Ben to pass Bradshaw he needs to perform under the pressure situations better, for as mediocre a regular season QB as Bradshaw was he is in the HOF for 4 games. So to me he needs to win 5... winning SBs back then was just as hard, the top teams were more talent laden and more consistent, now the teams are so watered down its more a stroke of injury luck and a couple hot games at the right time...

K Train
05-25-2008, 01:37 PM
so because he had a team that dominated a decade like 100 years ago hes the unquestioned best? so basically the entire starting lineup from the 70s is just the very best player in steelers history for every position and theres no way these guys can even taste pittsburgh greatness unless they are on a 5 SB winning roster?

thats being totally unfair to him because hes the QB

Koopa
05-25-2008, 02:47 PM
bradshaw is the most overrated piece of shiat ever (i know, y'all old folks are gonna bitch and moan, but i could care less).......... bradshaw would not have lasted in this era, hell he almost didn't last in the 70s, i saw the steelers history dvd, and had it not been for (i forgot who it was) and made his teammates back up terry then he wouldn't have even won a playoff game......... this day and age no one backs anyone up.......... had ben played in the 70s he'd dominate everyone, especially with the team they had in the 70s

bradshaw wouldn't have done shiat this year, ben made steeler history and didn't even throw that many ints, and he had the worse oline ever it seems

also, ben may have had a ****** stat night in the superbowl, but he made plays when they needed to be made, like the 3rd and 28 was it?? and then the rushing td, and then late in the game when we needed a first down he was almost down and pitched the ball and got the first down.......... so he made clutch plays, his stats just don't show it, and that's all some dumbasses look at

so all in all

ben >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terry

K Train
05-25-2008, 02:52 PM
word!

DIESELMAN
05-25-2008, 03:48 PM
4 rings in the 70s is like 10 rings now imo
Thats bullshit, a SB ring is a SB ring, no matter what era they were won in. Each team still had to play the season, playoffs and the SB. Granted I know, athletes are bigger, faster, stronger now days then they were years ago, but don't take away the accomplishments of yesterdays athletes because of that.

K Train
05-25-2008, 03:58 PM
Thats bullshiat, a SB ring is a SB ring, no matter what era they were won in. Each team still had to play the season, playoffs and the SB. Granted I know, athletes are bigger, faster, stronger now days then they were years ago, but don't take away the accomplishments of yesterdays athletes because of that.

no its not bullshit things have changed so much that you cant do what they did back then. Free agency, salary cap, rule changes changed all that. a team that could win 1 superbowl today would have destroyed every team back then. Its all relative really but todays ****** teams would beat the **** out of yesterdays champion teams. I think i might have said it wrong, it might be more like 4 superbowls back then is more like 1 today because everything changes so rapidly and parity does exist unlike back then when there were 3 or 4 teams every year that were just gonna end up battling it out in the playoffs and everyone knew it.

lol i knew this thread would get people all fired up

SteelerSteve
05-25-2008, 04:36 PM
I dont know. This is a tough subject, but while I think todays teams are bigger and faster now than they used to be, I have a hard time thinking the dolphins of last season could actually beat the Steelers of the 70's or 49ers of the 80's, but thats not because of the players, thats just how the team isn't run very well. Though I will say I think that todays steelers placed in the 70's era would be undefeated superbowl champs in that era, and without doubt Ben is definitley a much more physically talented QB than Bradshaw and with another superbowl ring and a solid remaining career he will be the best ever imo.

K Train
05-25-2008, 06:53 PM
it didnt take dan marino a superbowl ring to be known as the best miami QB ever, he gets mentioned as one of the best ever period....and he was on a team that went undefeated before he got there. Saying ben has to win 4 or 5 superbowls to be mentioned in the same breath with bradshaw is ridiculous

Black@Gold Forever32
05-25-2008, 06:56 PM
it didnt take dan marino a superbowl ring to be known as the best miami QB ever, he gets mentioned as one of the best ever period....and he was on a team that went undefeated before he got there. Saying ben has to win 4 or 5 superbowls to be mentioned in the same breath with bradshaw is ridiculous

I agree 100 percent.....Like I mentioned in my long *** post.....Marino wouldn't be ring less if he had played on a team as talented and loaded as the 70s Steelers....

K Train
05-25-2008, 07:00 PM
I agree 100 percent.....Like I mentioned in my long *** post.....Marino wouldn't be ring less if he had played on a team as talented and loaded as the 70s Steelers....

he probably would have won superbowls 9-20 lol

MOTORKRAFT
05-26-2008, 12:07 AM
It is impossible to compare teams of different era's, let alone players. Big Ben vs Bradshaw. Parker vs Franco, Stallworth vs Hines. It's all nonsense. All you can compare is the legacy that each player left. Ben is still working on his. Time will tell. If Ben retires a Steeler then his name will be mentioned with Bradshaws. If not, then what? Francos last season was with another team.(That sucked). How will they be remembered ?, only time will tell. And remember this L.C. Greenwood is not in the Hall of Fame because he was going to join a new leauge.

Stairwayto7
05-26-2008, 08:21 AM
It is impossible to compare teams of different era's, let alone players. Big Ben vs Bradshaw. Parker vs Franco, Stallworth vs Hines. It's all nonsense. All you can compare is the legacy that each player left. Ben is still working on his. Time will tell. If Ben retires a Steeler then his name will be mentioned with Bradshaws. If not, then what? Francos last season was with another team.(That sucked). How will they be remembered ?, only time will tell. And remember this L.C. Greenwood is not in the Hall of Fame because he was going to join a new leauge.

LOL LOL, Parker vs. Franco???

Stlrs4Life
05-26-2008, 08:34 PM
At least 3 more SB wins!:greengrin:

TEEMONT
05-26-2008, 09:10 PM
word!

hey thats my word....

anyways, on topic.

I am historically a Ben hater, although I have been easier on him, after his play this last year. I love Bradshaw, thought he was the "right QB for the 70's team". That being said, my wheelchair-bound grandmother would be the "right QB for the 70's team", and she has been dead for 9 years.

Talent-wise, Ben is far and away better than Bradshaw, and I am sure Bradshaw would say the same. Bradshaw played great in big games, but Ben has too. When it's all said and done Ben will be the best. He won a SB with one future HoF'er actively participating, Bradshaw never did that.

At the end of the day, comparing the 70's players, to the players of today is just stupid and a waste of time. The game is so different now it's not even funny. Most AFL players would have been superstars in the 70's, just by sheer size and strength. No old heads better even think of giving me the whole "attitude" argument, b/c it doesnt matter.

Hell just to take it a step further, if I was picking a team to play today in my back yard, I would take Larry Foote over Jack Lambert. Thats how much the game has changed.

------------------------------------------------------------
[AutoMerged Post Below]
------------------------------------------------------------

LOL LOL, Parker vs. Franco???

I'd take Parker of Franco too. Drop the Willie Parker of today in the football world of the 70's and it wouldn't even be fair.

K Train
05-26-2008, 09:10 PM
but tee....lambert had the attitude!!!!!!!!!

TEEMONT
05-26-2008, 09:12 PM
but tee....lambert had the attitude!!!!!!!!!

lol...**** dude, lambert wouldn't have even started on my high school team.

K Train
05-26-2008, 09:16 PM
willie back then would have emmit smith still chasing that title of most rushing yards

TEEMONT
05-26-2008, 09:20 PM
willie back then would have emmit smith still chasing that title of most rushing yards

he wouldnt be in this commercial thats for sure....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fucxG-he2qU

Stairwayto7
05-27-2008, 08:15 AM
Personally, I like Bradshaw, and i`m not saying Ben will ever surpass Terry as the No. QB in Steelers History. But if he did, it would look strange to see an all time Steelers team without #12.

Steel58
05-27-2008, 09:11 AM
Surpass Bradshaw on the stats and Superbowl rings:cope:

Stairwayto7
05-27-2008, 09:33 AM
Surpass Bradshaw on the stats and Superbowl rings:cope:

We can only hope!

steelcityrockers
05-27-2008, 04:45 PM
In the 70's, Kordell Stewart would have been the most prolific QB...just sayin.

BlitzburghNation
05-27-2008, 05:03 PM
Any doubters on how good bradshaw was,,,,,,,,,,Need to watch the DVD
History Of The Steelers,,,,,, :towelwave:

Opinions are like :moon: holes,,,,,,,,,We've all got one !

Also~~~~If----- If's & But's were candy & nuts :scratch:

We'd all have a merry x-mas !

I could careless who thinks which is better than the other,,,,,,,,, :popcorn:
IMO Terry was great in his time and time will tell just how good
Big Ben will be~~~~ :towelwave:
I know we would all like to see big ben get the same amount of rings bradshaw has,,,,,,,,,:crossfingers:

steelcityrockers
05-27-2008, 05:13 PM
Ok, Terry isn't worthy of having his balls licked by everyone. He almost failed in the 70's. He would have been a third string at best in today's NFL. Terry was a terrible decision maker, as evidenced by his +2 TD/INT ratio and his 51.9 completion %. That is bad...really bad. If he was on losing teams, he would not be in the HOF. But, he was and he is. However, you cannot judge a QB by wins and Ben, who is still really young, is definitely the better QB. I don't see how you can argue that.

K Train
05-27-2008, 05:23 PM
i love when people just dismiss the idea of comparing them but post anyway. its the grueling part of the offseason, its a good topic to debate so if you dont like it dont post

BlitzburghNation
05-27-2008, 05:31 PM
Ok, Terry isn't worthy of having his balls licked by everyone. He almost failed in the 70's. He would have been a third string at best in today's NFL. Terry was a terrible decision maker, as evidenced by his +2 TD/INT ratio and his 51.9 completion %. That is bad...really bad. If he was on losing teams, he would not be in the HOF.

:scratch: This coming from a steeler fan,,,,,,, :scratch:
Dam,,,,,,,,Terry mus've been before your time and your going by stats alone
Come on,,,,,,,,,,He's in the HOF,,,,,,,To hear you tell it Bradshaw didn't do anything !

Most great QB's had great teams around them,,,,,,,,,Ask Marino how many of those stat's he would trade for a RING !!!!!

His +2TD/INT ratio crap,,,,,,,,,Doesn't mean squat,,,,,,He was a risk taker and had a cannon for an arm,,,,,,watch the history DVD "don't take a die hard steeler fan's word" :tt02::helmet::tt02::helmet::tt02:

Stairwayto7
05-27-2008, 05:39 PM
Ok, Terry isn't worthy of having his balls licked by everyone. He almost failed in the 70's. He would have been a third string at best in today's NFL. Terry was a terrible decision maker, as evidenced by his +2 TD/INT ratio and his 51.9 completion %. That is bad...really bad. If he was on losing teams, he would not be in the HOF. But, he was and he is. However, you cannot judge a QB by wins and Ben, who is still really young, is definitely the better QB. I don't see how you can argue that.

BS ...... He % were due partially to not throwing enough. #12 had one of the strongest arms of his time, and his arm strength would be right at the top of todays QB`s also. Although he didn`t throw much during the season, he came up huge in the biggest games, right on the money. Making throws as he got hit and knocked out. He was better than YOU think!

K Train
05-27-2008, 05:46 PM
percentage has nothing to do with attempts

2/10 is just as bad as 20/100 even though 20/100 is 18 more completions than 2/10.

kinda thought that was an understood concept

TEEMONT
05-27-2008, 05:58 PM
it doesn't matter how strong his arm was, I know plenty of dudes who can throw a ball 70 yards but couldn't play ball in todays NFL. Bradshaw couldn't play ball today...period.

Todays talent >>>>>>>>>>>> yesterdays talent

But in the end, all that matters is how good you were when u played.

That being said, Ben is better than Bradshaw, and almost everyone of our LB's would have taken Lamberts roster spot.

BlitzburghNation
05-27-2008, 06:14 PM
One Word~~~~~HEART

Old players had more of that,,,,,,,,, I sure hope Big Ben will become better than bradshaw and win at least 3 more rings "Nothing would make me happier"

It always AMAZES me,,,,,,,,When Steeler fans can put down Steeler players
"especially HOF players" :scratch:

But I know the type,,,,,,,,,Some people like getting a rise from people !!!!!

So you guys have fun,,,,,,,I'm done with this :whiz: ing contest,,,,,,,:321:

TEEMONT
05-27-2008, 06:19 PM
One Word~~~~~HEART



see my first post in this thread, heart does not matter...Lambert would get his *** kicked today.

You cant measure heart so you can't use it in an argument.

Stairwayto7
05-27-2008, 06:38 PM
percentage has nothing to do with attempts

2/10 is just as bad as 20/100 even though 20/100 is 18 more completions than 2/10.

kinda thought that was an understood concept

My point was that he was never able to get into good rythmn or a flow, without getting the day to day attempts. It had nothing to do with the % concept, but thanks!
I agree that with Lamberts size, he would struggle today. Bradshaw would be fine.

steelcityrockers
05-27-2008, 06:54 PM
A lot of people were risk takers and have a cannon for an arm (see: Kyle Boller, Jim Druckenmiller, Jeff George, even Ryan Leaf, etc.) Yes he was well before my time. I think this thread is bogus because you cannot really compare players across decades. Ben is the better QB. Even with his weird *** mechanics. I hate the "rings" argument. Trent Dilfer is not a better QB than Dan Fouts or Kenny Andersen, etc. Yes winning 4 rings is a major accomplishment and I don't deny him that. However, using that argument is kinda retarded. You have to look at his completion % too. 51.9. Granted, the rules of the NFL were more geared towards rushing the ball, but 52%? That is horrific, especially with the talent he had at WR.

I am not normally a stats only guy, but they are quite telling.

Black@Gold Forever32
05-27-2008, 07:20 PM
One Word~~~~~HEART

Old players had more of that,,,,,,,,, I sure hope Big Ben will become better than bradshaw and win at least 3 more rings "Nothing would make me happier"

It always AMAZES me,,,,,,,,When Steeler fans can put down Steeler players
"especially HOF players" :scratch:

But I know the type,,,,,,,,,Some people like getting a rise from people !!!!!

So you guys have fun,,,,,,,I'm done with this :whiz: ing contest,,,,,,,:321:

It amazes me on how many Steelers fans are blind homers especially the older ones.....I think Terry was a great QB and I give him a ton of respect and credit for Terry helping in those four Super Bowl wins...But he is greatly over-rated by you older fans.....He doesn't even belong in the top five best QBs ever which most older Steelers fans I have talked to thinks he belongs...Hell my one living grandfather thinks he is the best ever.....:lol:

That 70s team was loaded and many QBs could have won 3-4 Super Bowls with that team...Especially the QB that lost to those great Steelers teams twice in the Super Bowl Roger Staubach.....

You say his +2 TD/INT ratio doesn't mean anything...Well your wrong.....Yes Terry was a risk taker and I do like that in the QB....But with a high INT ratio thats more then just being a risk taker....Thats just making dumb decisions at times.....

Staubach's TD/INT ratio was a +44....I mentioned him since he played in the same era as Bradshaw....Plus Roger lost some of his prime years to military service....In my opinion Roger was a better QB.....

I would like to see Terry face that Steelers D twice...lol

But I know the response Terry beat the Cowboys and has four rings so Terry is better...lol I will always support the Steelers and even if they never have another winning season they will still be my team...Hell I'm still a Pirates fan...lol But my fandom of the Steelers doesn't make me blind....I like to be more of a realist and respect other players.......I don't always think the Steelers are the best and their players are the best....Which many Steelers fan do....This fan base loves to over-rate their players...:lol:

Stairwayto7
05-27-2008, 07:44 PM
It amazes me on how many Steelers fans are blind homers especially the older ones.....I think Terry was a great QB and I give him a ton of respect and credit for Terry helping in those four Super Bowl wins...But he is greatly over-rated by you older fans.....He doesn't even belong in the top five best QBs ever which most older Steelers fans I have talked to thinks he belongs...Hell my one living grandfather thinks he is the best ever.....:lol:

That 70s team was loaded and many QBs could have won 3-4 Super Bowls with that team...Especially the QB that lost to those great Steelers teams twice in the Super Bowl Roger Staubach.....

You say his +2 TD/INT ratio doesn't mean anything...Well your wrong.....Yes Terry was a risk taker and I do like that in the QB....But with a high INT ratio thats more then just being a risk taker....Thats just making dumb decisions at times.....

Staubach's TD/INT ratio was a +44....I mentioned him since he played in the same era as Bradshaw....Plus Roger lost some of his prime years to military service....In my opinion Roger was a better QB.....

I would like to see Terry face that Steelers D twice...lol

But I know the response Terry beat the Cowboys and has four rings so Terry is better...lol I will always support the Steelers and even if they never have another winning season they will still be my team...Hell I'm still a Pirates fan...lol But my fandom of the Steelers doesn't make me blind....I like to be more of a realist and respect other players.......I don't always think the Steelers are the best and their players are the best....Which many Steelers fan do....This fan base loves to over-rate their players...:lol:

I am older, 41, but would not put Bradshaw in the TOP 5, or even Top 10 QB`s ever. But he might be No1 or No2 best Superbowl QB ever.

Over rated though ? The guy was money in big games, and in 78 when he went down, so did the Steelers playoff hopes, although most say that was thier best season ever.

I love the Steelers but I`m realistic also. He was great in his role for our team. MONEY! I also love Ben, but he is not in Terry league yet.

Also Terry came on to the scene to a team that was 1-13, so he had some pretty crappy teams to get started with.

------------------------------------------------------------
[AutoMerged Post Below]
------------------------------------------------------------

A lot of people were risk takers and have a cannon for an arm (see: Kyle Boller, Jim Druckenmiller, Jeff George, even Ryan Leaf, etc.) Yes he was well before my time. I think this thread is bogus because you cannot really compare players across decades. Ben is the better QB. Even with his weird *** mechanics. I hate the "rings" argument. Trent Dilfer is not a better QB than Dan Fouts or Kenny Andersen, etc. Yes winning 4 rings is a major accomplishment and I don't deny him that. However, using that argument is kinda retarded. You have to look at his completion % too. 51.9. Granted, the rules of the NFL were more geared towards rushing the ball, but 52%? That is horrific, especially with the talent he had at WR.

I am not normally a stats only guy, but they are quite telling.

Talent at WR? Wouldn`t this also be an opinion of yours. Stalworth I would agree with. But Swan had some big catches, but he I think was over rated, besides the SB.

steelcityrockers
05-27-2008, 08:06 PM
Yes he was. He was/is more overrated than Bradshaw. But he wasn't bad. Stallworth was good, and this is a time where all that was MAINLY used was the Top-2. And although he was good in the Superbowls, he isn't ne of the Top-2 Super Bowl QB's. Off the top of my head without really remembering Super Bowl QB's, I would say Bart Starr and Joe Montana are ahead of him.

BlitzburghRockCity
05-27-2008, 08:45 PM
I am older, 41, but would not put Bradshaw in the TOP 5, or even Top 10 QB`s ever. But he might be No1 or No2 best Superbowl QB ever.

Over rated though ? The guy was money in big games, and in 78 when he went down, so did the Steelers playoff hopes, although most say that was thier best season ever.

I love the Steelers but I`m realistic also. He was great in his role for our team. MONEY! I also love Ben, but he is not in Terry league yet.

Also Terry came on to the scene to a team that was 1-13, so he had some pretty crappy teams to get started with.

------------------------------------------------------------
[AutoMerged Post Below]
------------------------------------------------------------


Talent at WR? Wouldn`t this also be an opinion of yours. Stalworth I would agree with. But Swan had some big catches, but he I think was over rated, besides the SB.


Swann was your big time money player in big games. Stallworth was the guy that just kept going and going making solid catches week in and week out as well as making big plays in the big games. they were a great tandem and they also made Bradshaw look really good. Terry has admitted many times in interviews and such that he wasn't the best QB and that he hung them out to try many times with passes that were off the mark but they always came down with it. Terry was a QB who worked well in the system and used his weapons effectively. He deserves as much credit as anyone on that 70's team for helping them win 4 championships; he wasn't the best ever by any means but he's atleast a top 10 QB in NFL history IMO, at the very least a top 15 but I'd argue a top 10.

K Train
05-27-2008, 08:54 PM
ben isnt in terrys league in what regards?

if 4 rings makes terry the best, unquestioned number one....what about the other positions that won those rings? is Roy Gerela the best kicker ever? Or is jim clack the best guard ever? alan faneca didnt block his way to four superbowls behind the great TERRY BRADSHAW...Ill even go as far to ask if mel blount is the greatest CB ever? on a team that had rod woodson on its roster, who is considered by most to be right behind deion sanders as the best corner the league has ever seen.

Stairwayto7
05-27-2008, 09:23 PM
Ben hasn`t played long enough to be mentioned in " The Best of all time: conversations. In my opinion.

Blount would be on my list of best corners ever, but the corner position was different then.

You taken this all out of proportion now. Faneca is a great guard, doesn`t need rings to prove it. But without rings its ard to get in the HOF as a linemen.
gerela didn`t get 4 rings.

My point was never that you had to have four rings to be the best. My whole point was , on a team with some much good history, 5 Super Bowls, its tough to get on the all-time team list.

portcityblackandgold
05-27-2008, 09:34 PM
He's got to learn to read defenses faster, get rid of the ball a lot quicker, know his third option(which most of the time is open)and work with his receivers in the off season like the great QBs now in the NFL.

Stairwayto7
05-27-2008, 09:35 PM
It amazes me on how many Steelers fans are blind homers especially the older ones.....I think Terry was a great QB and I give him a ton of respect and credit for Terry helping in those four Super Bowl wins...But he is greatly over-rated by you older fans.....He doesn't even belong in the top five best QBs ever which most older Steelers fans I have talked to thinks he belongs...Hell my one living grandfather thinks he is the best ever.....:lol:

That 70s team was loaded and many QBs could have won 3-4 Super Bowls with that team...Especially the QB that lost to those great Steelers teams twice in the Super Bowl Roger Staubach.....

You say his +2 TD/INT ratio doesn't mean anything...Well your wrong.....Yes Terry was a risk taker and I do like that in the QB....But with a high INT ratio thats more then just being a risk taker....Thats just making dumb decisions at times.....

Staubach's TD/INT ratio was a +44....I mentioned him since he played in the same era as Bradshaw....Plus Roger lost some of his prime years to military service....In my opinion Roger was a better QB.....

I would like to see Terry face that Steelers D twice...lol

But I know the response Terry beat the Cowboys and has four rings so Terry is better...lol I will always support the Steelers and even if they never have another winning season they will still be my team...Hell I'm still a Pirates fan...lol But my fandom of the Steelers doesn't make me blind....I like to be more of a realist and respect other players.......I don't always think the Steelers are the best and their players are the best....Which many Steelers fan do....This fan base loves to over-rate their players...:lol:

Blind Homers??

So what makes you the Steelers expert? All the greatest players will now be the only younger newer players. Then when you reach your 40`s, all your favorites will be over rated. By the way smart @ss, Terry didn`t beat the Cowboys, he was part of a great team that beat the boys, but you already knew that, because you know everything! Damn me anyway, I shouldn`t have an opinion after the age of 40. If you only knew.

TEEMONT
05-27-2008, 09:58 PM
Blind Homers??

So what makes you the Steelers expert? All the greatest players will now be the only younger newer players. Then when you reach your 40`s, all your favorites will be over rated. By the way smart @ss, Terry didn`t beat the Cowboys, he was part of a great team that beat the boys, but you already knew that, because you know everything! Damn me anyway, I shouldn`t have an opinion after the age of 40. If you only knew.

I think you might be getting a bit spun up about this.

It's only natural that players now won't be able to compete with the players that will be on the field in 30 years. In 30 years 400 pound lineman will proably be pretty close to being common.

The game was different back then, thats all there is to it. I think what it really boils down to is this, would Bradshaw have thrown 32 TD's on last years team? I doubt it, however, I would put any amount of money on Ben being the best QB in the 70's. He is taller than what 85% of the lineman were then, heavier than 90% of the LB's, he would have been a physical freak back then, and ALL of those guys were juicing.

It's not even a question worth asking. The Super Bowl answer only works when comparing teams, and the "heart" factor isnt a factor, b/c you can't measure it.

Ben >>>>>> Bradshaw

Now >>>>>> then

K Train
05-27-2008, 10:23 PM
Blind Homers??

So what makes you the Steelers expert? All the greatest players will now be the only younger newer players. Then when you reach your 40`s, all your favorites will be over rated. By the way smart @ss, Terry didn`t beat the Cowboys, he was part of a great team that beat the boys, but you already knew that, because you know everything! Damn me anyway, I shouldn`t have an opinion after the age of 40. If you only knew.

it has nothing to do with you being 40, its the attitude that goes along with it. I will never be ridiculous when it comes to my favorite player and i promise you that. My favorite players right now are woodley and holmes....do i think they are the the unquestioned best? not at all. I ****ing hate polamalu, he used to be one of my favorite players but that didnt stop me from seeing him for what he is. I acknowledge their flaws and i praise their attributes, whether it be good or bad, saying bradshaw is the best is being a homer because you cant use the favorite player to justify greatness. I think aaron smith is the best 34 lineman in the league right now, not because hes a steeler, but because hes a master of that position. Other than that i would be lying if i said any of our players were the best overall at their position, but that doesnt mean i dont think they are talented and its not because i dont like them its because im realistic and to claim someone as the best you better be damn near perfect in every way.

if i created a list of the best players in the league right now, i would have one MAYBE 2 steelers on there...best players all time probably the same thing would happen...theres just to many great players out there and the steelers never needed the best player to be one of the best teams in nfls history...

ejsteeler
05-28-2008, 10:09 AM
Yes, the game was different back then and not a QB on the field today would last. The game was real, it was raw and it was rough. You honestly think Ben, and I love Ben, would stand up to the beating Terry took? I think not and I think Ben is a tough QB for todays game. It's not homerism, it's common sense. Lambert couldn't take the field today? Heart means nothing? Please people. If the players today had half the heart those guys had imagine how much better the game would be and the game is good. The guys today would not be able to withstand the physical beating the older guys took. Period. Exclamation point. Throw stats around all you want, you cannot change that fact. :yellowthumb:

Stairwayto7
05-28-2008, 11:50 AM
Part of the prolem is, we cannot rank then and now. Best players of thier era is the best we can do. i would think , based on size and performance, this will hange every twenty years or so.

One thing I will say, since someone mentioned Deion Sanders being the best corner ever. "i know he is ranked no.1 on most peoples lists, but how can a guy, that rarely made a tackle, e the best ever?" most of his tackles were just a push out of bounds. Woodon was a better all round corner, blitzing, tackling, run support etc.

ejsteeler
05-28-2008, 11:54 AM
I agree, Deon was over rated. He had great speed and instinct, but not physical enuogh to back them up.

K Train
05-28-2008, 12:33 PM
whos to say the players today dont have heart? thats ****ing retarded, your skewed version of what a passion for the game is running the ball 90% of the time and playing in the mud like little kids just because you view that as tougher...grrrr mean steelers smashmouth football. :rolleyes:

and dieon didnt have to make takles, he ws either intercepting the ball or the ball was being thrown away from him....plain and simple, physicality wasnt his game, but thats not what makes a great football player all the time despite what all of you think

ejsteeler
05-28-2008, 01:03 PM
Don't know. I didn't hear anyone say todays players don't have heart. I did hear someone say that you did not need heart though, that's where I was going with that.
Deon is over rated. He is good, yes, and I would even say HOF worthy, but I still think he is over rated.

K Train
05-28-2008, 01:17 PM
yeah overrated because no one would even throw near him, one man that literally shut down half a field... i get it though, because he was a cowboy hes overrated, its not like he has 4 rings of his own

ejsteeler
05-28-2008, 01:27 PM
That's correct.

Stairwayto7
05-28-2008, 04:45 PM
yeah overrated because no one would even throw near him, one man that literally shut down half a field... i get it though, because he was a cowboy hes overrated, its not like he has 4 rings of his own

Still disagree with Dieon, not because he was a Fal,49,Cow,Red did I miss something? Because he bailed on tackles when having the oppurtunity. He did shut down WR, but run support is also a big part of the game. part of what makes great players great , is being great at all aspects of the game.

K Train
05-28-2008, 04:52 PM
how are you gonna knock him for that? he did his job and he did it better than anyone else. he wasnt a big hitter but he never ran the opposite direction either, whether you push some one out of bounds or not a tackle is a tackle and all he did was make big plays and bring a winning attitude. First ballot HOFer and the best corner to ever cover a WR hands down.

that was a little off track lol

Stairwayto7
05-28-2008, 04:55 PM
how are you gonna knock him for that? he did his job and he did it better than anyone else. he wasnt a big hitter but he never ran the opposite direction either, whether you push some one out of bounds or not a tackle is a tackle and all he did was make big plays and bring a winning attitude. First ballot HOFer and the best corner to ever cover a WR hands down.

that was a little off track lol

Best Cover Corner! I agree with you! Best all-round corner?????

steelcityrockers
05-28-2008, 07:23 PM
I would say Dick "Night Train" Lane is the best corner ever.

TEEMONT
05-28-2008, 08:02 PM
I would say Dick "Night Train" Lane is the best corner ever.

please tell me you're joking

steelcityrockers
05-28-2008, 10:27 PM
Nope. Just my humble opinion. He was one hell of a player in his day. Darell Green was pretty good too.

Black@Gold Forever32
05-28-2008, 10:35 PM
Blind Homers??

So what makes you the Steelers expert? All the greatest players will now be the only younger newer players. Then when you reach your 40`s, all your favorites will be over rated. By the way smart @ss, Terry didn`t beat the Cowboys, he was part of a great team that beat the boys, but you already knew that, because you know everything! Damn me anyway, I shouldn`t have an opinion after the age of 40. If you only knew.

Never said I was the Steelers expert....Thanks for acting like a douche bag....Never had a problem with you before...Now that I state Terry is over-rated by many older Steelers fans...I see how you act...Nice.....:lol: Could careless really....:lol:

Funny I never said you couldn't have an opinion...Just stated mine and the facts on how this fan base over-rates its players.....:lol:

K Train
05-28-2008, 10:56 PM
yeah theres only one expert....me

steelcityrockers
05-28-2008, 11:04 PM
I agree whole heartedly with BG32 when he says this fan base over rates its players. It is borderline ridiculous. It gets to the point where if I said Jerome Bettis/Franco Harris isn't in Top-5 RB's of all time, I would get burned at the stake.

TEEMONT
05-28-2008, 11:07 PM
I agree whole heartedly with BG32 when he says this fan base over rates its players. It is borderline ridiculous. It gets to the point where if I said Jerome Bettis/Franco Harris isn't in Top-5 RB's of all time, I would get burned at the stake.

Bus/Harris are barely top 20 of all time.

steelcityrockers
05-28-2008, 11:44 PM
Exactly, but like BG32 says, this fan base REALLY overrates their players. Without even remembering half the names and in no particular order.
Jim Brown
Barry Sanders
Walter Payton
Emmitt Smith
Eric Dickerson
Gale Sayers
LaDanian Tomlinson
Marshall Faulk
Marcus Allen
Earl Campbell
Tony Dorsett
John Riggins
OJ Simpson
Thurman Thomas
Billy Sims (injuries cut his career short in Detroit. He would have been HOF)

All better than Bettis/Harris. Not to say the weren't good, they were very good...just not upper echelon.

K Train
05-28-2008, 11:56 PM
QBs better than bradshaw....








way to many to name lol

Stairwayto7
05-29-2008, 12:20 PM
Exactly, but like BG32 says, this fan base REALLY overrates their players. Without even remembering half the names and in no particular order.
Jim Brown
Barry Sanders
Walter Payton
Emmitt Smith
Eric Dickerson
Gale Sayers
LaDanian Tomlinson
Marshall Faulk
Marcus Allen
Earl Campbell
Tony Dorsett
John Riggins
OJ Simpson
Thurman Thomas
Billy Sims (injuries cut his career short in Detroit. He would have been HOF)

All better than Bettis/Harris. Not to say the weren't good, they were very good...just not upper echelon.


i agree with 90% of your list. herschel Walker i would probably put on this list. I was never a huge bettis fan.

Going back to page one, I stated Best QB`s in Steelers History only, not the entire NFL. i agree that Bradshaw would not rank that high.:tt02:

:tt02:

steelcitysfinestXL
05-29-2008, 12:40 PM
Exactly, but like BG32 says, this fan base REALLY overrates their players. Without even remembering half the names and in no particular order.
Jim Brown
Barry Sanders
Walter Payton
Emmitt Smith
Eric Dickerson
Gale Sayers
LaDanian Tomlinson
Marshall Faulk
Marcus Allen
Earl Campbell
Tony Dorsett
John Riggins
OJ Simpson
Thurman Thomas
Billy Sims (injuries cut his career short in Detroit. He would have been HOF)

All better than Bettis/Harris. Not to say the weren't good, they were very good...just not upper echelon.

Like Clevestinks, i also agree... i may sneak bussy on that list if you take into account the size of the man and pure stats alone. When you look at his career stats sheet, the accolades and such, you would never guess the man played the majority of his career at a listed 250+lbs (and we all know he was a bit more than that)But i think you could make a case either way whether he is a top tier back. I say Bettis is in my top 15 for sure, Franco doesnt belong IMO. Im just glad Terrell Davis isnt on that list!

------------------------------------------------------------
[AutoMerged Post Below]
------------------------------------------------------------
I really think Ben is on pace to lay claim to the title "Best Steelers QB All-Time" His numbers will be better, the question is will he win the rings!?! IMO he doesnt have to win 4+ rings to earn that title. If thats the case than you might as well say Marino is over-rated! Rings wont make or break Ben when it comes to this argument.
.

steelcityrockers
05-29-2008, 04:13 PM
I forgot about Terell Davis amongst others...so that list isn't really complete.

SteelerSteve
05-29-2008, 10:13 PM
Yes, the game was different back then and not a QB on the field today would last. The game was real, it was raw and it was rough. You honestly think Ben, and I love Ben, would stand up to the beating Terry took? I think not and I think Ben is a tough QB for todays game. It's not homerism, it's common sense. Lambert couldn't take the field today? Heart means nothing? Please people. If the players today had half the heart those guys had imagine how much better the game would be and the game is good. The guys today would not be able to withstand the physical beating the older guys took. Period.:
Okay, I agree that heart means something, but you really dont think Ben could take the beating terry took? Oh he could easily, Ben has definitley taken some hits in his career, but the difference is that Ben would probably be dishing out more of a beating than he would be taking lol. He's bigger and stronger than most of the guys who would have been trying to tackle him. Imagine having todays Steelers face the 70's steelers, Hines Ward would have a Mel Blount lol and any other defender who got in his way and the old team would get roughed up so bad that half the team would be sidelined before the game was over.

------------------------------------------------------------
[AutoMerged Post Below]
------------------------------------------------------------

lol...shiat dude, lambert wouldn't have even started on my high school team.Wow, that might be stretching it lol

Steel58
05-30-2008, 08:52 AM
SUPERBOWL WINS:cope::tt02:

Stairwayto7
05-30-2008, 11:51 AM
I think its a it ridiculous to say that Bradshaw or Lambert, would not be starters today. They would be bigger and stronger like everyone else if they were given the same training and knowledge todays players have. For a Linebacker, I forget who said that " Lambert wouldn`t start on todays team" seeing a play develop is a huge part of the game for a lineacker. And Lambert had the speed, desire and could see the play develop. Now somebody like Jack Ham, never got dirty , so I could see him not make todays team.

------------------------------------------------------------
[AutoMerged Post Below]
------------------------------------------------------------

I agree whole heartedly with BG32 when he says this fan base over rates its players. It is borderline ridiculous. It gets to the point where if I said Jerome Bettis/Franco Harris isn't in Top-5 RB's of all time, I would get burned at the stake.

i would think that all fans over rate thier players. it just so happens that this team was once a dynasty, so they have a more convincing case.

TEEMONT
06-02-2008, 01:11 AM
I think its a it ridiculous to say that Bradshaw or Lambert, would not be starters today. They would be bigger and stronger like everyone else if they were given the same training and knowledge todays players have. For a Linebacker, I forget who said that " Lambert wouldn`t start on todays team"

I said it, and I didnt say they wouldnt start, I said they would even make the team.

Lambert wouldnt make 95% of the NCAA teams today. It's a different game, I dont care how dirty he got.

Steel58
06-02-2008, 09:24 AM
Superbowls

Steel58
06-03-2008, 08:43 AM
Superbowl victories

ejsteeler
06-03-2008, 10:59 AM
Exactly what is it you are trying to say Steel58? :lol:

Stairwayto7
06-03-2008, 11:09 AM
I said it, and I didnt say they wouldnt start, I said they would even make the team.

Lambert wouldnt make 95% of the NCAA teams today. It's a different game, I dont care how dirty he got.

A different game? What does it take to be a linebacker in this new league?

Speed
Agility
A great sense for the ball
Guts/will
toughness physical and mental

And where would Jack Lambert be lacking???

Size? Lambert was small but he would have the benefit of todays training, trainers, and nutrition and supplements

steelcityrockers
06-04-2008, 06:39 PM
You dont see many 210 pound or less linebackers running around.

Stairwayto7
06-04-2008, 09:14 PM
You dont see many 210 pound or less linebackers running around.

I guess you only read 3/4 0f my post! my bad, I should have wrote sloooooower

steelcityrockers
06-04-2008, 09:27 PM
His frame may not have been able to pack on more weight without sacrificing speed/agility/etc.

Stairwayto7
06-04-2008, 10:58 PM
His frame may not have been able to pack on more weight without sacrificing speed/agility/etc.

Please! Now everyones a Dr. Athletes 30 years ago didn`t train or no enough about nutrition! Look at Lamberts build, he had wide shoulders and he was tall, he could carry the weight!

Steel58
06-05-2008, 08:54 AM
Superbowls

BR7
06-05-2008, 12:28 PM
Kent Graham, hands down BEST EVER!

steelcityrockers
06-05-2008, 04:56 PM
I was thinking Bubby Brister if only because his name is Bubby.

Steel58
06-13-2008, 08:48 AM
just bring in the Lombardi trophies

TEEMONT
06-13-2008, 10:48 AM
A different game? What does it take to be a linebacker in this new league?

Speed
Agility
A great sense for the ball
Guts/will
toughness physical and mental

And where would Jack Lambert be lacking???

Size? Lambert was small but he would have the benefit of todays training, trainers, and nutrition and supplements

It doesn't matter what Lambert "could" be if he played today, all that matters is what he was, and he was a skinny LB who benefited from playing in an inferior era, plain and simple. The Lambert of yesterday wouldn't even be able to have a ST slot on this team. He is lacking in every single thing you listed when it comes to todays players......even these


Guts/will
toughness physical and mental

You don't make it to the NFL without having those traits. So saying that Lambert was this little ball of guts and will, with some physical toughness thrown in doesn't matter, b/c there isn't a player in the league who doesn't carry those same traits.

Stairwayto7
06-13-2008, 11:50 AM
It doesn't matter what Lambert "could" be if he played today, all that matters is what he was, and he was a skinny LB who benefited from playing in an inferior era, plain and simple. The Lambert of yesterday wouldn't even be able to have a ST slot on this team. He is lacking in every single thing you listed when it comes to todays players......even these



You don't make it to the NFL without having those traits. So saying that Lambert was this little ball of guts and will, with some physical toughness thrown in doesn't matter, b/c there isn't a player in the league who doesn't carry those same traits.

I apologize, you seem to know everything, so I won`t argue with you any more. Your right Lambert would suck now. He had no speed, or agility then

Stairwayto7
06-13-2008, 05:27 PM
"When you start talking about attitude and focus, Jack is the epitome. He was the most focused individual I've ever had."

-- Chuck Noll --

TEEMONT
06-13-2008, 05:43 PM
I apologize, you seem to know everything, so I won`t argue with you any more. Your right Lambert would suck now. He had no speed, or agility then

why do you get so ***-hurt when people disagree with you? No one has been disrespectful towards you, or your opinion. But yet you insist (twice in this thread) on throwing a hissy fit about how me and BG are always right and we know everything. Get over it dude, I'm not sad that you don't share my opinion, and I'm also not offended, if we all had the same opinion, there wouldn't be much going on here other than......



Great post!


I agree


what he said

This place would be very feverish then.....

BlitzburghRockCity
06-13-2008, 05:44 PM
Im not sure I'd agree that Lambert couldn't play today. He was as much a beneficiary of a great defense and great teammates as anyone else on those teams of the 70's and he was able to hold his own against bigger RB's, lineman, TE's, and anyone else that came his way. To say though that the 70's were an inferior era, I wouldn't agree with. if anything you had to be more tough during that time than you do now. Today there are more rules, more immediate advanced medical treatment, more schemes, more "less physical" types of offense; during the 70's it was all tough guys, smash mouth, go home if you can't handle the pressure. I think Lambert would do ok in today's NFL but he'd definitely have to pack on a good 25 lbs though which I think he'd be able to do.

TEEMONT
06-13-2008, 05:58 PM
Im not sure I'd agree that Lambert couldn't play today. He was as much a beneficiary of a great defense and great teammates as anyone else on those teams of the 70's and he was able to hold his own against bigger RB's, lineman, TE's, and anyone else that came his way. To say though that the 70's were an inferior era, I wouldn't agree with. if anything you had to be more tough during that time than you do now. Today there are more rules, more immediate advanced medical treatment, more schemes, more "less physical" types of offense; during the 70's it was all tough guys, smash mouth, go home if you can't handle the pressure. I think Lambert would do ok in today's NFL but he'd definitely have to pack on a good 25 lbs though which I think he'd be able to do.

Yeah but handling yesterdays big lineman (280 lbs was huge then) is different than handling todays. Sure they were tough guys, but I don't think too many guys have ever gotten to the NFL by not being tough. In essence you're saying Lambert was so tough that todays players couldn't handle him.

The only thing I have said this whole time is yesterdays Lambert could not play today today. Maybe if he put on 25 lbs, but he would still be kind of small, and he didn't seem too super athletic to me, so the odds would be stacked against him.

The NFL is constantly evolving and at a rapid pace.

Todays NFL >>>>>> Yesterdays
Tomorrows NFL >>>>>> Todays

It's just the way things are, gimme Lloyd over Lambert.

Stairwayto7
06-13-2008, 06:57 PM
Jack Lamberts 4th season with the Steelers, he was 6`4" 220

Greg LLyodd 4th season, 6`2" 234

Lambert was a 2 time all state basketball player, but he wasn`t a great athlete. Lambert looked thinner because of his height!

TEEMONT
06-13-2008, 09:58 PM
Jack Lamberts 4th season with the Steelers, he was 6`4" 220

Greg LLyodd 4th season, 6`2" 234

Lambert was a 2 time all state basketball player, but he wasn`t a great athlete. Lambert looked thinner because of his height!

which meant he was thinner....right?

2 inches shorter and 14 pounds heavier....thats a lot more muscle...

besides...believing Lambert was 220 is like believing the bus was only 250.

Stairwayto7
06-13-2008, 10:20 PM
You mentioned , "if he put on 25lbs" so that would put him at 245.
Your probably younger, so you picked Lloydd over Lambert. Im old so I would want Lambert in the middle, and Llyodd who I think I was our best OLB ever, on the outside. Totally different positions! Totally!

Lambert played in a 4-3, Middle in a 4-3 takes a better athlete than a middle in a 3-4

TEEMONT
06-14-2008, 12:02 AM
You mentioned , "if he put on 25lbs" so that would put him at 245.
Your probably younger, so you picked Lloydd over Lambert. Im old so I would want Lambert in the middle, and Llyodd who I think I was our best OLB ever, on the outside. Totally different positions! Totally!

Lambert played in a 4-3, Middle in a 4-3 takes a better athlete than a middle in a 3-4

It has nothing to do with my age...and yeah I am younger...26....I have seen Lambert play plenty....such is the wonder of DVD's...

Lambert, like Bradshaw was backed up by great players.

You could 50% of the people on this site behind Lamberts front four, and we would make 150 tackles in a season. Lloyd never played on a truly great defense.


Yeah maybe if Lambert had 25 more pounds he might be able to play today, but we can sit here and IF all day long....he wasnt big enough for todays game at his position, I doubt he was even fast enough.

steelcityrockers
06-14-2008, 12:06 AM
If my aunt had balls, she would then very likely be my uncle.

TEEMONT
06-14-2008, 12:07 AM
If my aunt had balls, she would then very likely be my uncle.

and she might star in some gross movies

steelcityrockers
06-14-2008, 12:08 AM
I would NOT want to see them, for the obvious reasons.

Stairwayto7
06-14-2008, 08:01 AM
T,

So would Greg Llyodd also benefit from the great players around him? Woodson,Lake,Greene, etc?

Hell Jerome Bettis would be Sh!t, if it weren`t for great players around him. What Superbowl team ever made it that far with just one player?

It`s absurd to think that no player from another era could play today. Especially if they were given all the modern day training, and supplements that the players have today. not to mention the $$$, so that all you have to do is be a football player 365 days a year.

By the way Lambert ran a respectable 4.4.

And your age probably has everything to do with it. DVD`s show highlights. there is much more than highlights to the game of football. I`m not criticizing you for your age, hell I wish I were 26 again. but you know what you`ve seen. And you saw a great Greg Llyodd, week afetr week, play after play. Different position than Lambert , but you did see him play, and he was great. Some of us older fans, have seen Lambert, and he was a man amongst boys when he played.
Stars are made with good players around them. They all benefit from the 10 other players on the field. Deion Sanders, who I hate, went from one Superbowl contender to another, just to play on the best team, each team put heat on the QB, with great players. That help make him one of the best corners of all-time. Without the other great players, he couldn`t even cover somebody for 60 seconds.

TEEMONT
06-14-2008, 11:27 AM
T,

So would Greg Llyodd also benefit from the great players around him? Woodson,Lake,Greene, etc?

Hell Jerome Bettis would be Sh!t, if it weren`t for great players around him. What Superbowl team ever made it that far with just one player?

It`s absurd to think that no player from another era could play today. Especially if they were given all the modern day training, and supplements that the players have today. not to mention the $$$, so that all you have to do is be a football player 365 days a year.

By the way Lambert ran a respectable 4.4.

And your age probably has everything to do with it. DVD`s show highlights. there is much more than highlights to the game of football. I`m not criticizing you for your age, hell I wish I were 26 again. but you know what you`ve seen. And you saw a great Greg Llyodd, week afetr week, play after play. Different position than Lambert , but you did see him play, and he was great. Some of us older fans, have seen Lambert, and he was a man amongst boys when he played.
Stars are made with good players around them. They all benefit from the 10 other players on the field. Deion Sanders, who I hate, went from one Superbowl contender to another, just to play on the best team, each team put heat on the QB, with great players. That help make him one of the best corners of all-time. Without the other great players, he couldn`t even cover somebody for 60 seconds.

I don't really think there were any "great" players on the 05 team, it was a team, and they got hot at the right time.

And seeing just Lambert's highlights (no lowlights), and being able to see Lloyd make mistakes would if anything slant me towards Lambert. Lambert being a man amongst boys in the 70's doesn't do much for me now...different game completely. Players are bigger, faster, smarter, and stronger. And back then there wasn't a player who wasn't juicing on the Steelers.

Once again, I'm saying the Jack Lambert....the way he was, could not play today. We aren't arguing what ifs here, we are arguing one era being better than another, and this era is head and shoulders above the one you grew up watching. Which means its players are head and shoulders above yesterdays. Like we said before, if Willie played back then, Emmit would still be chasing his records.

As far as Deion (and I really don't want to get into this), he was great when he played for the Falcons, so there goes that theory. Also, what CB can cover a WR for 60 seconds? You show me that, and I will show you a CB that will change the game as we know it. Deion may have been a migrant at the end of his career, but he made a name for himself in Atlanta, covering everyone and anyone, better than anyone had ever done it, whether he had a good DL or not.

Oh, and I can say the sky is green, but without proof you won't believe me. I'm not saying Lambert was slow, but to say he ran a 4.4, without any kind of link, is worthless.

Stairwayto7
06-14-2008, 11:37 AM
First what a crock! 05 team just got hot? Are you serious? They were a great team for a few years! Hell they should have been there in 04.
If Lambert were juicing he would have looked liked Greg Llyodd.
Deion was a better player in Dallas, defensive player in Dallas. Atlanta he was a better at returns.
Where is the proof that players today are smarter?? You come up with this proof and I`ll give you the link about Lamberts 4.4
And my entire point about covering for 60 seconds, is that it is impossible, you need heat on a QB for the DB`s to get thier game on. Most of the greatest players, with the exception of some QB`s and RB`s, especially Hall of Famers, all played on some of the best teams of thier era. So no players is squat without other great players around him.

steelersgal86
06-14-2008, 11:43 AM
:popcorn2:

Stairwayto7
06-14-2008, 11:50 AM
Jack Lambert was a two-year All-Mid America Conference linebacker at Kent State and a second-round draft selection of the Pittsburgh Steelers in 1974. The 6-4, 220-pound Lambert immediately took charge of his destiny by winning the starting middle linebacker assignment as a rookie and keeping it throughout his 11-year career in Pittsburgh that ended after the 1984 season.

He was soon recognized as the premier linebacker of his era. Lambert had all the necessary ingredients – intelligence, intensity, speed, quickness, range, durability – and he used them all to his best advantage. Even though he was the youngest starter on the Pittsburgh defensive unit, many felt that Lambert's presence was the final ingredient needed to turn that unit into a dominant one. Intimidating, he helped to shape and reinforce Pittsburgh’s famed “Steel Curtain.”

Lambert was the NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year in 1974. He was All-Pro eight times in a nine-year span between 1975 and 1983, and played in nine straight Pro Bowls. His impressive résumé also includes the fact that he was the NFL Defensive Player of the Year in 1976.

The team defensive captain for eight years, Lambert played in six AFC championship games and four Super Bowls. His interception late in the fourth quarter preserved Pittsburgh's fourth NFL title victory in Super Bowl XIV. During his career, he had 28 interceptions, which he returned 243 yards. In 1976, he recorded eight opponents' fumble recoveries and wound up with 17 during his 11-year tenure.

Lambert missed only six games because of injuries his first 10 years in the NFL but, in 1984, he suffered a severe toe injury, which limited his playing time to just eight games. He eventually was forced to retire at the end of the season.
Wrong page! I`ll find the 4.4. But I do like the comments about his intelligence, speed, quickness. Coming from the HALL of Fame and not just from a stupid old fan like me.

steelcityrockers
06-14-2008, 12:24 PM
There are NO 220 pound linebackers. He was probably less than that anyway. If he was fast enough, he would probably go to safety. But that, is only if he had the speed.

Stairwayto7
06-14-2008, 01:07 PM
Wow your good! No Sh!t!

TEEMONT
06-14-2008, 01:27 PM
First what a crock! 05 team just got hot? Are you serious? They were a great team for a few years! Hell they should have been there in 04.
If Lambert were juicing he would have looked liked Greg Llyodd.
Deion was a better player in Dallas, defensive player in Dallas. Atlanta he was a better at returns.
Where is the proof that players today are smarter?? You come up with this proof and I`ll give you the link about Lamberts 4.4
And my entire point about covering for 60 seconds, is that it is impossible, you need heat on a QB for the DB`s to get thier game on. Most of the greatest players, with the exception of some QB`s and RB`s, especially Hall of Famers, all played on some of the best teams of thier era. So no players is squat without other great players around him.

Eh, the 05 was great when they played like a team, which is what they did in the playoffs. They got hot at the right time, and being a wild card team, they had to. I am not trying to take anything away from them, but I dont think they were the best team all year, they were just the best team at the right time.

Maybe Lambert didn't juice, but to say he would have looked like Lloyd is not entirely true. It's well documented that most of the Steelers then juiced, including Mike Webster, and he went maybe 250 soaking wet, and played the line. So Lambert juicing is a possibility. I can't prove todays players are smarter, but they are running much more complex offenses and defenses, and todays player more than likely spends more hours studying film (from more angles and perspectives) than yesterdays. So I feel confident saying that todays players are smarter, but its an opinion, and you can't prove opinion.

Lambert didn't play against the caliber of competition that we have today, even with there being like 6 more teams, the talent hasn't been watered down. Maybe Lambert would be great today if he had all of the training todays players have, but thats not the argument I am making, I am saying you couldn't transplant Lambert from the 70's into todays game, it just wouldn't happen.

I know you love Lambert, and I loved the way he played the game, but it just doesn't translate to todays game.

------------------------------------------------------------
[AutoMerged Post Below]
------------------------------------------------------------

Jack Lambert was a two-year All-Mid America Conference linebacker at Kent State and a second-round draft selection of the Pittsburgh Steelers in 1974. The 6-4, 220-pound Lambert immediately took charge of his destiny by winning the starting middle linebacker assignment as a rookie and keeping it throughout his 11-year career in Pittsburgh that ended after the 1984 season.

He was soon recognized as the premier linebacker of his era. Lambert had all the necessary ingredients – intelligence, intensity, speed, quickness, range, durability – and he used them all to his best advantage. Even though he was the youngest starter on the Pittsburgh defensive unit, many felt that Lambert's presence was the final ingredient needed to turn that unit into a dominant one. Intimidating, he helped to shape and reinforce Pittsburgh’s famed “Steel Curtain.”

Lambert was the NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year in 1974. He was All-Pro eight times in a nine-year span between 1975 and 1983, and played in nine straight Pro Bowls. His impressive résumé also includes the fact that he was the NFL Defensive Player of the Year in 1976.

The team defensive captain for eight years, Lambert played in six AFC championship games and four Super Bowls. His interception late in the fourth quarter preserved Pittsburgh's fourth NFL title victory in Super Bowl XIV. During his career, he had 28 interceptions, which he returned 243 yards. In 1976, he recorded eight opponents' fumble recoveries and wound up with 17 during his 11-year tenure.

Lambert missed only six games because of injuries his first 10 years in the NFL but, in 1984, he suffered a severe toe injury, which limited his playing time to just eight games. He eventually was forced to retire at the end of the season.
Wrong page! I`ll find the 4.4. But I do like the comments about his intelligence, speed, quickness. Coming from the HALL of Fame and not just from a stupid old fan like me.

No one is saying he wasn't a beast back then, I am just saying he wouldn't be able to play today....

Stairwayto7
06-14-2008, 01:38 PM
Juicing? Supplements and dealing with bodybuilders daily, is my life. Webster looked to be a 250 lb man a frame of a 200lb man. Lambert being 6`4" he could easily carry 235 or 240. Every body type is different, and steroids don`t make every man a bodybuilder, perfect symmetry, I just hate to stereotype an era athletes based on alot of them juicing!

TEEMONT
06-14-2008, 01:50 PM
Juicing? Supplements and dealing with bodybuilders daily, is my life. Webster looked to be a 250 lb man a frame of a 200lb man. Lambert being 6`4" he could easily carry 235 or 240. Every body type is different, and steroids don`t make every man a bodybuilder, perfect symmetry, I just hate to stereotype an era athletes based on alot of them juicing!

I'm not saying it does....but those dudes were on roids...it just gets swept under the table.

Stairwayto7
06-14-2008, 02:06 PM
I'm not saying it does....but those dudes were on roids...it just gets swept under the table.

No your right, there were alot throughout the NFL. But they were banned then. Two years ago Pro-hormones were legal. I don`t know if you workout or do anything athletic, not knocking anyone, i just don`t know, but there are so many legal alternatives to steroids, that do work, they are not anabolic, but the supplements today, that will probably be illegal someday, help gain muscle, make you leaner, and increase your mental focus. They increased mental focus that goes along with these products is unbelievable. Anyway, Lamberts structure doesn`t really look like a juicer. Llyodd did. its almost impossible to be built like Llyodd and be that ripped. there are a ton of huge guys today, and some are ripped, but not as ripped as Greg llyodd. the hardest thing to day is to eat as much as you need to eat 1000 and 1000 of calories are needed daily to keep up with that muscle, then to be ripped too. Almost impossible without some help, legal or illegal

Steel58
06-16-2008, 09:21 AM
just win and bring home the Superbowl trophy

steelcityrockers
06-16-2008, 01:24 PM
Steel58, I think you have said pretty much that exact same line about 37 times throuhout this thread. I think we know what you are trying to say.

K Train
06-16-2008, 01:34 PM
Surpass Bradshaw on the stats and Superbowl rings:cope:


Superbowls


Superbowl victories


Superbowls


just bring in the Lombardi trophies


just win and bring home the Superbowl trophy

i was wondering when someone would bring that up lol, all his posts are about 6 words and ive never actually held a conversation with him lol

coggsnyrnyg
06-16-2008, 03:17 PM
I didn't read all 12 pages, but it is an interesting debate. Giants fans have a similar debate, but it is usually between Tittle, Gifford, and Simms. I am only 32, and never saw Bradshaw play, highlights do not count. To simply compare them based on rings is foolish in my opinion. Do you think any Dolphin fan puts Griese ahead of Marino?

I have heard from many non-steelers fans who were around in the 70's, that Bradshaw was good, but not great. He benefitted from a solid running game, 2 great receivers, and possibly the best defense of all-te real qime.

To me, the best way to compare is how each would do in each other's shoes. If Roethlisberger played in the 70's, would the Steelers still have won 4 titles? Would they have won more? Would the Steelers have won XL with Bradshaw? Would they have more than 1 in their current era?

------------------------------------------------------------
[AutoMerged Post Below]
------------------------------------------------------------

For Ben to pass Bradshaw he needs to perform under the pressure situations better, for as mediocre a regular season QB as Bradshaw was he is in the HOF for 4 games. So to me he needs to win 5... winning SBs back then was just as hard, the top teams were more talent laden and more consistent, now the teams are so watered down its more a stroke of injury luck and a couple hot games at the right time...

You can make the argument that it is harder to win that many nowadays with the salary cap. If the NFL had cap rules in the 70's, they never would have been able to keep that team together for 4 titles. Probably would have won 2, before the player losses hurt them too much.

steelcityrockers
06-16-2008, 06:11 PM
i was wondering when someone would bring that up lol, all his posts are about 6 words and ive never actually held a conversation with him lol

I know, in seemingly every thread it is the same thing over and over again, with no substance. Kind of entertaining to see how many times he will post the same sentence in one thread.

SteelerSteve
06-16-2008, 11:59 PM
T,
It`s absurd to think that no player from another era could play today. Especially if they were given all the modern day training, and supplements that the players have today. not to mention the $$$, so that all you have to do is be a football player 365 days a year.
By the way Lambert ran a respectable 4.4.
:yellowthumb: I have to agree with you there, the only reason that athletes today are bigger faster and stronger is the evolution of training techniques and supplements. Its not like an average person of today is physically superior to an average person in the 70's lol.