PDA

View Full Version : Top LB corps of all time



ice cream glove
04-14-2013, 04:21 PM
On the NFL Network. Top 10 LBs units of all time.

Pgh was the only team to have TWO groups on the list. The 90's group with Lloyd and Greene were at 8 or 7, and the 70s gang was listed as the #2 best unit ever. The late 80's Saints group - where all 4 LBs made the pro bowl, were their #1 best LB unit ever. Only problem with listing them 1st is they never won a play off game, while Pgh's LBs won 4 SBs. But I remember those Saints teams - almost impossible to score on. The reason they never won anything is their offense was pretty limited. That Saints team was very Cowher-ish: great D, good running game, lame passing game that couldn't get it done come the post season.

Do you think the 1970's Steelers deserve the top ranking of all-time best LB units?

An amusing part of the show: 49er teammate of Roger Craig said the Craig said, after just 3 rushing plays vs. the Saints, of V. Johnson, "I don't know who that dude is, but don't let him hit me again; he hurts."

Rocky#20
04-15-2013, 10:26 AM
The Steelers 3 linebackers of Ham, Russell and Lambert, not only made the Pro-Bowl every year, but they have 4 Rings and are in the Hall of Fame. Are any of the Saints LB crew in the Hall of Fame?
The NFL network also named Desean Jackson's punt return against the Giants as the "greatest play in NFL history". The "Immaculate Reception" wasn't even in the finals, so I don't put a whole lot of faith in their top ten picks.

Zachintosh66
04-15-2013, 11:58 AM
The Steelers 3 linebackers of Ham, Russell and Lambert, not only made the Pro-Bowl every year, but they have 4 Rings and are in the Hall of Fame. Are any of the Saints LB crew in the Hall of Fame?
The NFL network also named Desean Jackson's punt return against the Giants as the "greatest play in NFL history". The "Immaculate Reception" wasn't even in the finals, so I don't put a whole lot of faith in their top ten picks.

I agree with the greatest play... if it was "Most Magical Play" i think you'd have to consider the IR. Otherwise, it was a lucky bounce that changed our franchise if were being honest with ourselves.

Best LB crew... The 90's crew was pretty bad *** too (greg, kevin, kirk and chad). Those usually are out of wack anyways, so i dont pay too much attention to that crap.

Crash
04-15-2013, 12:30 PM
The Saints at #1 is laughable. Never won a playoff game.

ice cream glove
04-15-2013, 03:45 PM
The Saints at #1 is laughable. Never won a playoff game.

Football is a team game. It wasn't the Saint's LB's fault that they never won a play off game; they did more than their share. That group was totally bad @ss.

TarlsQtr
04-15-2013, 06:58 PM
Football is a team game. It wasn't the Saint's LB's fault that they never won a play off game; they did more than their share. That group was totally bad @ss.

Agreed. The goal posts just keep moving because some want to raise their own choice up. If the Saints had won some playoff games, the same people would say that that particular unit had never won a Super Bowl.

Who was the "best" is highly subjective but they deserve to be in the discussion.

ice cream glove
04-15-2013, 08:44 PM
Agreed. The goal posts just keep moving because some want to raise their own choice up. If the Saints had won some playoff games, the same people would say that that particular unit had never won a Super Bowl.

Who was the "best" is highly subjective but they deserve to be in the discussion.

I noticed one poster does nothing but move goal posts in discussion. Endless moving of goal posts. No logic or reason need apply. Anyone who pooh poohs that Saint LB crew never saw them play. They were insane. Mills, Ricky Jackson, Vaughn Johnson and Pat Swilling....are you kidding me? And I don't see how you diminish these guys based on an offense with no passing game. Bobby Hebert? WR unit of Robert Clark, Lonzell Hill, Eric Martin, Mark Pattison and Brett Perriman?

Yea, the LBs weren't anything special because of that offense didn't win in the play offs.

Rhyno
04-16-2013, 12:36 AM
Anyone who pooh poohs that Saint LB crew never saw them play.

This is the truth. They were otherworldly. It cannot be stressed enough how bad-*** the Dome Patrol was.

Crash
04-16-2013, 02:10 AM
Agreed. The goal posts just keep moving because some want to raise their own choice up. If the Saints had won some playoff games, the same people would say that that particular unit had never won a Super Bowl.

Who was the "best" is highly subjective but they deserve to be in the discussion.

So you would take those guys over Ham, Lambert, and Russell?

I wouldn't.

Ham is considered by many to be the best OLB of his era.

Same for Lambert in the middle.

Can you say the same for ANY of the Saints three?

No, you can't.

TarlsQtr
04-16-2013, 09:48 AM
So you would take those guys over Ham, Lambert, and Russell?

I wouldn't.

Ham is considered by many to be the best OLB of his era.

Same for Lambert in the middle.

Can you say the same for ANY of the Saints three?

No, you can't.

I never made a case for the Saints (other to say they should be in the discussion) or the Steelers LB corps. At least your most recent post, although it does indeed "move the goalposts" like I said you would, uses a criteria slightly less ridiculous than 'never won a playoff game."

That said, ask yourself the following. This is a team game and the Saints LBs played on teams that were mediocre at their best. If you could miraculously put the Saints LBs on the 70's Steelers that won 4 Super Bowls, do you think that maybe some would fit your criteria of "best in their era" in the minds of many? If you put the Steelers linebackers on those mediocre Saints teams, is it possible they would not have been considered the "best in their era" in the same minds? Would Ham, on a mediocre team, have been considered better than LT? Would Lambert, on a mediocre team, have been considered better than Singletary?

SnakeEyes43
04-16-2013, 12:24 PM
I grew up watching that 90's LB core. They'll always have a special place in my Steeler heart.

Crash
04-16-2013, 02:00 PM
This is a team game and the Saints LBs played on teams that were mediocre at their best.

Mediocre my ***. From 1987-1992 they never had a losing season and had double digit win seasons four times.

Then Swilling left in 1993.

Playoff performance does matter, it always has. That's why Andre Reed can't get in the HOF.


Would Ham, on a mediocre team, have been considered better than LT?

They aren't in the same discussion, learn the history of the game before you comment on it.

LT arrived in 1981.

Ham retired after 1982.

LT is considered the best OLB when he played.

Just like Ham was when he did.


Would Lambert, on a mediocre team, have been considered better than Singletary?

You should take Lambert off your profile by insulting his ability by trying to compare a one trick pony like Singletary to him.

Singletary was a good run stuffer. But if it wasn't for Chris Berman's hype and Singletary's bug eyes he doesn't even sniff Canton.

Lambert covered RB's in the flat, Lambert was one of the few MLB's who could cover wide receivers down field in pass coverage.

Mike Singletary couldn't cover ME!

TarlsQtr
04-16-2013, 02:47 PM
Mediocre my ***. From 1987-1992 they never had a losing season and had double digit win seasons four times.

Then Swilling left in 1993.

Playoff performance does matter, it always has. That's why Andre Reed can't get in the HOF.

OK, so the Saints were bad because they never won in playoffs but the Saints were good because they had a few seasons mostly over .500. In other words, they made the playoffs because they were a good team that was not "mediocre" but lost in the playoffs because the LBs were no good. Your argument is as incoherent as it comes.

What an interesting decision that you chose the year 1987 to begin to highlight. All but one of the Saints linebackers came in 1986. Do you think it is a coincidence that the team NEVER had an above .500 record until the second year (1987) for most of those guys? You then end the highlighted period at 1992, the year Swilling retired. Then Jackson and Johnson retired in 1993 and Mills in 1994. Is it another HUGE coincidence that they did not have a winning record from 1993 until 2000, when they were retired or on the verge?

They were the heart and soul of those teams and virtually the ONLY THING that made them as competitive as they were.


They aren't in the same discussion, learn the history of the game before you comment on it.

LT arrived in 1981.

Ham retired after 1982.

LT is considered the best OLB when he played.

Just like Ham was when he did.

And read my post before you comment. I know damn well when Ham played (and Lambert) compared to LT/Singletary, etc. The obvious point to anyone with a fifth grade education is that if Ham and/or Lambert played a decade later on otherwise mediocre teams, many would not have seen them as "the best of their era" either compared to LT/Singletary.


You should take Lambert off your profile by insulting his ability by trying to compare a one trick pony like Singletary to him.

Singletary was a good run stuffer. But if it wasn't for Chris Berman's hype and Singletary's bug eyes he doesn't even sniff Canton.

Lambert covered RB's in the flat, Lambert was one of the few MLB's who could cover wide receivers down field in pass coverage.

Mike Singletary couldn't cover ME!

Let's, as arguendo, take your comment as complete truth. It proves my point. Singletary got press and adulation because he played on great teams that won a championship (just like the 70's Steelers). Put him on the Buccanneers (just like Lambert and Ham) in the 80's and there would be little talk about Singletary (or Lambert and Ham) being "the best of the era."

The original discussion was best group of linebackers. Put the Saints four on the 70's Steelers and there would have been no drop off. They were a fantastic group that should not get penalized because the team around them was mediocre at best.

Put the 70's Steeler linebackers on the 80's Saints teams and the same thing would have happened. They would have been great on a mediocre team that could not win playoff games. It is a TEAM sport. You cannot judge individual performances based on only team accomplishments in such a sport. It was not Marino's fault that he never had good defenses and Elway did not suddenly get better at the end of his career when he finally won championships. They were always great players.

Crash
04-16-2013, 03:18 PM
The Steelers of the 1970's were a 4-3 team.

The Saints with Jackson and Swilling were a 3-4 team.

You think Rickey Jackson could play the run like Ham did? You think Pat Swilling could pass cover like Lambert did?

You guys are nuts.

I'm sorry, but only an idiot, would put the Saints LB's ahead of the 1970's Steelers.

I'm still trying to figure out how a team that had four double digit win teams in six years was "mediocre".


It was not Marino's fault that he never had good defenses

No, it was Marino's fault that he gagged in big games. He gagged at PITT, he gagged in Miami.


and Elway did not suddenly get better at the end of his career when he finally won championships. They were always great players.

Elway also won three AFC titles playing in Dan Reeves' dinosaur offense BEFORE Pat Bowlen began to cater to him after 1992 when he sent Reeves on his way.

ice cream glove
04-16-2013, 03:25 PM
So you would take those guys over Ham, Lambert, and Russell?

I wouldn't.

Ham is considered by many to be the best OLB of his era.

Same for Lambert in the middle.

Can you say the same for ANY of the Saints three?

No, you can't.

Totally different era. Not apples to apples. All four Saints LB made the pro bowl the same year. That tells you how much they were perceived as awesome. Johnson, Mills, Swilling, Jackson. They were monsters.

Crash
04-16-2013, 03:58 PM
Totally different era. Not apples to apples. All four Saints LB made the pro bowl the same year. That tells you how much they were perceived as awesome. Johnson, Mills, Swilling, Jackson. They were monsters.

The Steelers three did also.

Steelers three LB's: 24 Pro Bowls:

Saints FOUR LBs: 20 Pro Bowls:

The Saints four have a COMBINED THREE 1st Team All Pro selections.

Lambert has 6, Ham has 6, Russell has zero.

12 to 3, and the Saints had an extra player at the position.

It's not even close, when you look at INDIVIDUAL FACTS of the players involved.

TarlsQtr
04-16-2013, 04:01 PM
The Steelers of the 1970's were a 4-3 team.

The Saints with Jackson and Swilling were a 3-4 team.

You think Rickey Jackson could play the run like Ham did? You think Pat Swilling could pass cover like Lambert did?

You guys are nuts.

OF COURSE there are scheme differences, etc. The implication that they would not have been good players in other schemes is ludicrous.


I'm sorry, but only an idiot, would put the Saints LB's ahead of the 1970's Steelers.

And I did that where? Please quote me.


I'm still trying to figure out how a team that had four double digit win teams in six years was "mediocre".

In light of the fact that you would like the Rooneys, Colbert, and most of the coaching staff beheaded at the 50 yard line after a single 8-8 season, your statement is pretty amusing.


No, it was Marino's fault that he gagged in big games. He gagged at PITT, he gagged in Miami.

Too funny. It is amazing how it is a single player's fault/credit when it is in your best interest and then is the team's/someone else's fault/credit when it is in your best interest. Yep, all Marino's fault.


Elway also won three AFC titles playing in Dan Reeves' dinosaur offense BEFORE Pat Bowlen began to cater to him after 1992 when he sent Reeves on his way.

See what I mean? It was not Elway's fault. Of course, in Marino's case it had nothing to do with crappy Miami defenses.

ice cream glove
04-16-2013, 04:03 PM
OK, so the Saints were bad because they never won in playoffs but the Saints were good because they had a few seasons mostly over .500. In other words, they made the playoffs because they were a good team that was not "mediocre" but lost in the playoffs because the LBs were no good. Your argument is as incoherent as it comes.

What an interesting decision that you chose the year 1987 to begin to highlight. All but one of the Saints linebackers came in 1986. Do you think it is a coincidence that the team NEVER had an above .500 record until the second year (1987) for most of those guys? You then end the highlighted period at 1992, the year Swilling retired. Then Jackson and Johnson retired in 1993 and Mills in 1994. Is it another HUGE coincidence that they did not have a winning record from 1993 until 2000, when they were retired or on the verge?

They were the heart and soul of those teams and virtually the ONLY THING that made them as competitive as they were.



And read my post before you comment. I know damn well when Ham played (and Lambert) compared to LT/Singletary, etc. The obvious point to anyone with a fifth grade education is that if Ham and/or Lambert played a decade later on otherwise mediocre teams, many would not have seen them as "the best of their era" either compared to LT/Singletary.



Let's, as arguendo, take your comment as complete truth. It proves my point. Singletary got press and adulation because he played on great teams that won a championship (just like the 70's Steelers). Put him on the Buccanneers (just like Lambert and Ham) in the 80's and there would be little talk about Singletary (or Lambert and Ham) being "the best of the era."

The original discussion was best group of linebackers. Put the Saints four on the 70's Steelers and there would have been no drop off. They were a fantastic group that should not get penalized because the team around them was mediocre at best.

Put the 70's Steeler linebackers on the 80's Saints teams and the same thing would have happened. They would have been great on a mediocre team that could not win playoff games. It is a TEAM sport. You cannot judge individual performances based on only team accomplishments in such a sport. It was not Marino's fault that he never had good defenses and Elway did not suddenly get better at the end of his career when he finally won championships. They were always great players.
:plus1:

ice cream glove
04-16-2013, 04:06 PM
The Steelers three did also.

Steelers three LB's: 24 Pro Bowls:

Saints FOUR LBs: 20 Pro Bowls:

The Saints four have a COMBINED THREE 1st Team All Pro selections.

Lambert has 6, Ham has 6, Russell has zero.

12 to 3, and the Saints had an extra player at the position.

It's not even close, when you look at INDIVIDUAL FACTS of the players involved.

Endless circular logic and moving of goal posts = not worth discussing stuff with.

Rocky#20
04-16-2013, 04:13 PM
I'm not sure what the NFL networks criteria was for greatest LB crew of all time. If it was for one season then maybe you could make a case for the Saints. For a career however, the only competition the 70's Steelers would have is the 1960's Packers. They had Dave Robinson, Ray Nitshcke and Lee Roy Caffey. Robinson and Nitschke are in the HOF, and Caffey was a perrennial All-Pro who played on 4 NFL Champion teams.

Crash
04-16-2013, 04:13 PM
Endless circular logic and moving of goal posts = not worth discussing stuff with.

No dummy, you guys said team sport, you guys brought up individual stuff.

So I went ahead and did the same with the Steelers players, and once again, I win.

The only people moving the goal posts here, are you guys.

TarlsQtr
04-16-2013, 04:14 PM
Crash,

You always ignore the obvious and choose to obfuscate. Please answer my question from earlier:


What an interesting decision that you chose the year 1987 to begin to highlight. All but one of the Saints linebackers came in 1986. Do you think it is a coincidence that the team NEVER had an above .500 record until the second year (1987) for most of those guys? You then end the highlighted period at 1992, the year Swilling retired. Then Jackson and Johnson retired in 1993 and Mills in 1994. Is it another HUGE coincidence that they did not have a winning record from 1993 until 2000, when they were retired or on the verge?

Was it a coincidence that the Aints never had a winning season before the heyday of their 4 LBs and did not again for 7 years after they began retiring?

The period YOU CHOSE TO HIGHLIGHT as the team being good/very good/great? almost perfectly correlates with the prime of the LBs careers. If not the play of Johnson, Swilling, Mills, and Jackson, what accounts for it?

Crash
04-16-2013, 04:15 PM
In light of the fact that you would like the Rooneys, Colbert, and most of the coaching staff beheaded at the 50 yard line after a single 8-8 season, your statement is pretty amusing

No, I want Art II to get out of the way and allow his coaches, and his GM, to do the jobs they are paid to do. When Art realizes he's a lawyer and not a guy qualified to make on-field football decisions? The better off this team will be.

I don't give a rats *** about the Rooney's besides that. I don't root for the Rooney's on Sunday's, they don't play.

Crash
04-16-2013, 04:20 PM
What an interesting decision that you chose the year 1987 to begin to highlight. All but one of the Saints linebackers came in 1986.

Because Swilling wasn't a starter in 1986. If anything I did you guys a favor. By all means, you want to lump 1986 in there when Swilling wasn't a starter, and compare that to Ham and Lambert who started every game as rookies? Be my guest, it only makes my case stronger.

Thanks.

TarlsQtr
04-16-2013, 04:31 PM
Because Swilling wasn't a starter in 1986. If anything I did you guys a favor. By all means, you want to lump 1986 in there when Swilling wasn't a starter, and compare that to Ham and Lambert who started every game as rookies? Be my guest, it only makes my case stronger.

Thanks.

I will ask again:

Was it a coincidence that the Aints never had a winning season before the heyday of their 4 LBs and did not again for 7 years after they began retiring?

The period YOU CHOSE TO HIGHLIGHT as the team being good/very good/great? almost perfectly correlates with the prime of the LBs careers. If not the play of Johnson, Swilling, Mills, and Jackson, what accounts for it?

Crash
04-16-2013, 04:35 PM
The period YOU CHOSE TO HIGHLIGHT as the team being good/very good/great? almost perfectly correlates with the prime of the LBs careers. If not the play of Johnson, Swilling, Mills, and Jackson, what accounts for it?

Wait a minute now, so now their prime and play as why they won, but their lack of it in the playoffs is not why they lost?

You guys are confused. First you guys say the Saints were mediocre when they were there, now you give them credit for winning?

Can you guys make up your goddamn minds? Appreciate it.

All I'm saying is IMO, you can't rank a group of LB's #1 in NFL HISTORY when they never won a playoff game.

Christ LT, Carl Banks, and Harry Carson were better than the Saints group.

TarlsQtr
04-16-2013, 05:08 PM
Wait a minute now, so now their prime and play as why they won, but their lack of it in the playoffs is not why they lost?

You guys are confused. First you guys say the Saints were mediocre when they were there, now you give them credit for winning?

Can you guys make up your goddamn minds? Appreciate it.

All I'm saying is IMO, you can't rank a group of LB's #1 in NFL HISTORY when they never won a playoff game.

Christ LT, Carl Banks, and Harry Carson were better than the Saints group.

Your reading is less than high school level. The part you quote reads (added bold):
The period YOU [you=Crash] CHOSE TO HIGHLIGHT as the team being good/very good/great?

I said no such thing. The team was mediocre. The only reason the team reached mediocrity was because of those four LBs. That is and has always been my position. You stated that they were a good/very good/ or great team but cannot give a reason for it that is not related to the play of the LBs.

You are the one moving the goalposts.

Again, you failed to answer the following (I wonder why?):


Was it a coincidence that the Aints never had a winning season before the heyday of their 4 LBs and did not again for 7 years after they began retiring?

The period YOU CHOSE TO HIGHLIGHT as the team being good/very good/great? almost perfectly correlates with the prime of the LBs careers. If not the play of Johnson, Swilling, Mills, and Jackson, what accounts for it?

It may be time to have a Steelers discussion with the pair of scissors on my desk. They are sharper and appear to have the same reading capacity that you do.

ice cream glove
04-16-2013, 06:18 PM
No dummy, you guys said team sport, you guys brought up individual stuff.

So I went ahead and did the same with the Steelers players, and once again, I win.

The only people moving the goal posts here, are you guys.

Ad hominem attacks? You got nothing else. Your logic is crap. You have no ability for critical thinking and are mocked by all. All you do is speak in circles and never prove an assertions. You would fail a Logic 101 and be kicked off the debate team for FAIL.

ice cream glove
04-16-2013, 06:22 PM
Your reading is less than high school level. The part you quote reads (added bold):

I said no such thing. The team was mediocre. The only reason the team reached mediocrity was because of those four LBs. That is and has always been my position. You stated that they were a good/very good/ or great team but cannot give a reason for it that is not related to the play of the LBs.

You are the one moving the goalposts.

Again, you failed to answer the following (I wonder why?):



It may be time to have a Steelers discussion with the pair of scissors on my desk. They are sharper and appear to have the same reading capacity that you do.

:plus1::banana::cope:

You just destroyed this blathering, illogical house plant.

TarlsQtr
04-16-2013, 06:27 PM
:plus1::banana::cope:

You just destroyed this blathering, illogical house plant.

A house plant is smarter because it stays silent. As Lincoln said, "Better to remain silent and let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Crash
04-16-2013, 07:50 PM
The team was mediocre.

So again, a double digit win team is mediocre?

The 1987 Saints were #2 in the NFL in scoring and were #10 or better in scoring in four of the six seasons I mentioned.

Let me guess those 4 linebackers were the ones who were scoring those points?

ice cream glove
04-16-2013, 09:26 PM
So again, a double digit win team is mediocre?

The 1987 Saints were #2 in the NFL in scoring and were #10 or better in scoring in four of the six seasons I mentioned.

Let me guess those 4 linebackers were the ones who were scoring those points?

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Crash
04-17-2013, 01:25 AM
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Faaaaaaaaaaaaacts.

Most of you kids weren't watching the NFL then. You only know what other people tell you.

TarlsQtr
04-17-2013, 10:01 AM
Good morning, scissors. Yes, Merrill Hoge was one of the few bright spots on those 80's teams....

Crash
04-17-2013, 12:22 PM
Good morning, scissors. Yes, Merrill Hoge was one of the few bright spots on those 80's teams....

Merril Hoge played for the Saints?

TarlsQtr
04-17-2013, 02:55 PM
Merril Hoge played for the Saints?

No, scissors, I disagree. Although you bring up some interesting points, there are some safeties of value available in the later rounds. I would not take Vacarro in the first.

Thanks for the input though. At least inanimate objects do not need Thorazine...

Crash
04-17-2013, 04:45 PM
I said no such thing. The team was mediocre. The only reason the team reached mediocrity was because of those four LBs.

So again, the Saints linebackers were responsible for their offense scoring points?

If you say so.

Crash
04-17-2013, 04:48 PM
The team was mediocre. The only reason the team reached mediocrity was because of those four LBs.

Yeah it couldn't have anything to do with their offense scoring points.

It was all their defense.

TarlsQtr
04-17-2013, 04:49 PM
So again, the Saints linebackers were responsible for their offense scoring points?

If you say so.

Really? Show me where I "said so." Please quote.

Perhaps delusions are side effects from your Thorazine cocktail treatments?

Crash
04-17-2013, 04:57 PM
Actually a delusional thought is someone putting Mike Singletary in Jack Lambert's class.

Not even close. Singletary is a glorified Robin Cole.

TarlsQtr
04-17-2013, 05:01 PM
Actually a delusional thought is someone putting Mike Singletary in Jack Lambert's class.

Not even close. Singletary is a glorified Robin Cole.

And show me where I did that. Please quote.

Adjust your meds...

Crash
04-17-2013, 05:07 PM
Endless circular logic and moving of goal posts = not worth discussing stuff with.

Translation: Crash took our own logic and kicked our asses with it.

You guys said team success couldn't be part of individual player achievements.

Well the Steelers three clearly outclass the Saints FOUR, in individual success.

Now what?