That could hurt guys that start their careers in the middle of a decade. Payton would not be the first team back for the 70's then. >>
Absolutely it could..And SHOULD...Its the same debate as the All-Time Teams. If a guy plays 5 years with a team, goes to 4 Pro Bowls and wins a Championship, is he REALLY one of the greatest players in that franchise's history? Only 5 years? To me that's tunnel vision, and that's voting with your emotions and not your head.
I didn't say the committee has NEVER selected a guy with 5 years to the first team..Just that they didn't this decade, and that was the right call. When the case is extraordinary, such as Sweetness, or say Gale Sayers in the HOF then absolutely exceptions should be made..But to say the committee should have left off Brian Urlacher and instead put DeMarcus Ware on the first team to me is crazy. And personally, I am thankfully they didn't get THAT into the weeds at the LB position. Hey, some voters do. They selected the best LEFT and RIGHT Tackles rather than the top 2 Tackles..The best LOLB and ROLB. It's a technique, and it's the minority opinion, but hey it's a free country.
Personally, the only one I disagree with is Brady over Manning. I get the titles thing, but if I'm picking the best QB of the decade, it's Peyton..Seems to be the minority opinion, but I think I've watched every snap either of these guys have ever taken in a game and for me Manning is one of the best I've ever seen. Brady is GREAT, but Manning is unstoppable 90% of the time he's on the field. Brady is more like 60% unstoppable. But he does play better at crunch time, so I guess that was enough to garner first team...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
That could hurt guys that start their careers in the middle of a decade. Payton would not be the first team back for the 70's then. >>
Absolutely it could..And SHOULD...Its the same debate as the All-Time Teams. If a guy plays 5 years with a team, goes to 4 Pro Bowls and wins a Championship, is he REALLY one of the greatest players in that franchise's history? Only 5 years? To me that's tunnel vision, and that's voting with your emotions and not your head.
I didn't say the committee has NEVER selected a guy with 5 years to the first team..Just that they didn't this decade, and that was the right call. When the case is extraordinary, such as Sweetness, or say Gale Sayers in the HOF then absolutely exceptions should be made..But to say the committee should have left off Brian Urlacher and instead put DeMarcus Ware on the first team to me is crazy. And personally, I am thankfully they didn't get THAT into the weeds at the LB position. Hey, some voters do. They selected the best LEFT and RIGHT Tackles rather than the top 2 Tackles..The best LOLB and ROLB. It's a technique, and it's the minority opinion, but hey it's a free country.
Personally, the only one I disagree with is Brady over Manning. I get the titles thing, but if I'm picking the best QB of the decade, it's Peyton..Seems to be the minority opinion, but I think I've watched every snap either of these guys have ever taken in a game and for me Manning is one of the best I've ever seen. Brady is GREAT, but Manning is unstoppable 90% of the time he's on the field. Brady is more like 60% unstoppable. But he does play better at crunch time, so I guess that was enough to garner first team...
Jason >>
I believe its more about what a guy does during his time w/ a team than the actual amount of time he's there. 5 years is enough time IMO to leave a lasting impression w/ a team. If an exeception can be made for Payton I don't know why Ware isn't deserving as well.
I wish they would weed out the positions b/c OLB and MLB require different skill sets.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
<< <i> I believe its more about what a guy does during his time w/ a team than the actual amount of time he's there. 5 years is enough time IMO to leave a lasting impression w/ a team. If an exeception can be made for Payton I don't know why Ware isn't deserving as well.
I wish they would weed out the positions b/c OLB and MLB require different skill sets. >>
It's BOTH...What he does and how long he does it..5 years? Really? I mean lasting impression, sure. But ALL-TIME GREAT, retire the number, Ring of Fame? 5 years? Not for me, not even CLOSE. All-Time requires the time part. They need to be GREAT for a long period. If a guy rushes for 2,400 yards one season, wins a Super Bowl, Super Bowl MVP then blows out his knee the next year and never plays again, he's an all-time great? HOFer? Come on, you got show CONSISTENT DOMINANCE, and 5 years simply is not enough. How many HOFers who didn't play in the 1920s played only 5 years???
With the LBs its a numbers game. Some teams play 4-3, some 3-4. Different skill sets (to a point) amongst all those. I mean strong side and weak side LB have different skill sets. Left Tackle and Right Tackle, different skill sets, X WR and Y WR, different skill sets. Left DE, right DE, different skill sets...But none of these are THAT different. I mean, this isn't rocket science, picking these All-Decade Teams.
Ware plays OLB in a 3-4. He is essentially an undersized or standup DE. His "skill set" is rushing the passer, so how do you compare him with the prototypical OLB who plays alot of coverage? Derrick Brooks for example...You can't. If you want to REALLY be fair, then Ware should be voted as a DE, in which case, he doesn't even make the team.
They took the 3 LB's with THE MOST VOTES. And I congratulate them for making the correct call. Heck, I'd buy Lance Briggs on the First team at OLB before Ware. Ware plays DE more than anything. Just look at his tackle totals vs. his sack totals vs. other LBs...But NONE of the second team guys have any business making the first team over the 3 first ballot LBs from the decade. Lewis, Brooks and Urlacher. Lewis and Brooks are two of the greatest LBs to ever play in the NFL! Ware is a nice player (I live in Arlington, TX BTW) but he's got a LONGGGG way to go before he becomes an all-timer. Let me see 3-5 more dominant years first and then we can lump him in with the Charles Haley's of the world...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i> I believe its more about what a guy does during his time w/ a team than the actual amount of time he's there. 5 years is enough time IMO to leave a lasting impression w/ a team. If an exeception can be made for Payton I don't know why Ware isn't deserving as well.
I wish they would weed out the positions b/c OLB and MLB require different skill sets. >>
It's BOTH...What he does and how long he does it..5 years? Really? I mean lasting impression, sure. But ALL-TIME GREAT, retire the number, Ring of Fame? 5 years? Not for me, not even CLOSE. All-Time requires the time part. They need to be GREAT for a long period. If a guy rushes for 2,400 yards one season, wins a Super Bowl, Super Bowl MVP then blows out his knee the next year and never plays again, he's an all-time great? HOFer? Come on, you got show CONSISTENT DOMINANCE, and 5 years simply is not enough. How many HOFers who didn't play in the 1920s played only 5 years???
With the LBs its a numbers game. Some teams play 4-3, some 3-4. Different skill sets (to a point) amongst all those. I mean strong side and weak side LB have different skill sets. Left Tackle and Right Tackle, different skill sets, X WR and Y WR, different skill sets. Left DE, right DE, different skill sets...But none of these are THAT different. I mean, this isn't rocket science, picking these All-Decade Teams.
Ware plays OLB in a 3-4. He is essentially an undersized or standup DE. His "skill set" is rushing the passer, so how do you compare him with the prototypical OLB who plays alot of coverage? Derrick Brooks for example...You can't. If you want to REALLY be fair, then Ware should be voted as a DE, in which case, he doesn't even make the team.
They took the 3 LB's with THE MOST VOTES. And I congratulate them for making the correct call. Heck, I'd buy Lance Briggs on the First team at OLB before Ware. Ware plays DE more than anything. Just look at his tackle totals vs. his sack totals vs. other LBs...But NONE of the second team guys have any business making the first team over the 3 first ballot LBs from the decade. Lewis, Brooks and Urlacher. Lewis and Brooks are two of the greatest LBs to ever play in the NFL! Ware is a nice player (I live in Arlington, TX BTW) but he's got a LONGGGG way to go before he becomes an all-timer. Let me see 3-5 more dominant years first and then we can lump him in with the Charles Haley's of the world...
Jason >>
I agree that the example RB would not be an all-time great but I'm guessing he would have earned a spot in the team's hof or ring of honor.
True that Ware is used as a pass rusher in the 3-4 but he excels in that role to the point where he can wreck offenses. He's not asked to cover so I don't believe that should be held against him. If the individual LB positions aren't worth recognizing then why not just go w/ OL and DL?
I'm not sure Urlacher is a HOF at this point. IMO he has benefited from playing in Chicago and receiving extra attention b/c of the whole "Monsters of the Midway" tradition. He kind of reminds me of Nickerson but in a bigger market.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
I agree that the example RB would not be an all-time great but I'm guessing he would have earned a spot in the team's hof or ring of honor.
True that Ware is used as a pass rusher in the 3-4 but he excels in that role to the point where he can wreck offenses. He's not asked to cover so I don't believe that should be held against him. If the individual LB positions aren't worth recognizing then why not just go w/ OL and DL?
I'm not sure Urlacher is a HOF at this point. IMO he has benefited from playing in Chicago and receiving extra attention b/c of the whole "Monsters of the Midway" tradition. He kind of reminds me of Nickerson but in a bigger market. >>
He wouldn't be on the Cowboys Ring of Honor, that's for sure! lol...So what you've described is a LDE/Pass Rusher. Ware averages exactly 3.475 tackles per game. I mean there are LDE's who make more tackles. If he played for a 4-3 team, would he play DE or LB?
They differentiate certain positions, because the "skill set" you spoke of IS that big of a difference. OL/DL being a prime example. DT vs. DE? HUGE...OC vs. OT? HUGE difference. LCB vs. RCB? Not that different. LDE vs. RDE? Not that different. Hey, I don't make the rules man, start e-mailing the HOF voters with those type questions...You can also ask why they still put two RBs on the first team, but no FB on the first team. Based on conversations I have had with HOF voters, these things are done via consensus and because they make sense to the majority at the time.
OK, let's end this debate and let's compare Urlacher vs. Ware this decade:
Urlacher-6 Pro Bowls, 4 1st Team All-Pros, 816 tackles, 37.5 sacks, 17 INTs, 9 fumble recoveries, NFC Championship Ware-4 Pro Bowls, 3 1st Team All-Pros, 280 tackles, 64.5 sacks, 1 INT, 2 fumble recoveries
Based on this, you still think Ware was a better player last decade? Cowboy bias aside, are they really even close....lol
Although we haven't found a middle ground here, it's been a fun debate. Good to get some football debates in during the off-season.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I agree that the example RB would not be an all-time great but I'm guessing he would have earned a spot in the team's hof or ring of honor.
True that Ware is used as a pass rusher in the 3-4 but he excels in that role to the point where he can wreck offenses. He's not asked to cover so I don't believe that should be held against him. If the individual LB positions aren't worth recognizing then why not just go w/ OL and DL?
I'm not sure Urlacher is a HOF at this point. IMO he has benefited from playing in Chicago and receiving extra attention b/c of the whole "Monsters of the Midway" tradition. He kind of reminds me of Nickerson but in a bigger market. >>
He wouldn't be on the Cowboys Ring of Honor, that's for sure! lol...So what you've described is a LDE/Pass Rusher. Ware averages exactly 3.475 tackles per game. I mean there are LDE's who make more tackles. If he played for a 4-3 team, would he play DE or LB?
They differentiate certain positions, because the "skill set" you spoke of IS that big of a difference. OL/DL being a prime example. DT vs. DE? HUGE...OC vs. OT? HUGE difference. LCB vs. RCB? Not that different. LDE vs. RDE? Not that different. Hey, I don't make the rules man, start e-mailing the HOF voters with those type questions...You can also ask why they still put two RBs on the first team, but no FB on the first team. Based on conversations I have had with HOF voters, these things are done via consensus and because they make sense to the majority at the time.
OK, let's end this debate and let's compare Urlacher vs. Ware this decade:
Urlacher-6 Pro Bowls, 4 1st Team All-Pros, 816 tackles, 37.5 sacks, 17 INTs, 9 fumble recoveries, NFC Championship Ware-4 Pro Bowls, 3 1st Team All-Pros, 280 tackles, 64.5 sacks, 1 INT, 2 fumble recoveries
Based on this, you still think Ware was a better player last decade? Cowboy bias aside, are they really even close....lol
Although we haven't found a middle ground here, it's been a fun debate. Good to get some football debates in during the off-season.
Jason >>
I understand your argument but I wish the voters would look at the differences between the LB positions or go w/ 4 LB rather than 3. This might make sense as more teams are using the 3-4 now.
Tackles can be a deceiving stat b/c a guy can fall on a pile and get credit.
Ware isn't in a position to get alot of tackles b/c his job is to force ball carriers back into the inside. I think its hard to compare the two b/c one is inside and one is outside. Urlacher has the tackles, INT's and recoveries b/c he see's alot of action in the middle. Ware has alot of sacks b/c he rushes the passer. If they both were MLB or OLB this would be easier.lol
I agree, its nice to have something to debate during the offseason. I have enjoyed the discussion.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
I understand your argument but I wish the voters would look at the differences between the LB positions or go w/ 4 LB rather than 3. This might make sense as more teams are using the 3-4 now.
Tackles can be a deceiving stat b/c a guy can fall on a pile and get credit.
Ware isn't in a position to get alot of tackles b/c his job is to force ball carriers back into the inside. I think its hard to compare the two b/c one is inside and one is outside. Urlacher has the tackles, INT's and recoveries b/c he see's alot of action in the middle. Ware has alot of sacks b/c he rushes the passer. If they both were MLB or OLB this would be easier.lol
I agree, its nice to have something to debate during the offseason. I have enjoyed the discussion. >>
Problem is, they don't differentiate the All-Pro selections that way or Pro Bowl slots either...So why do it for the All-Decade? They don't..And didn't...But hey, 10 years from now the popular opinion could change...Who knows..
If you want a better insight on how they decided to stick with 11 on offense and 11 on defense, and how to populate those teams per position, read more into the All-Pro voting process. Most of the voters are actually the same as the HOF committee. And they go through the position selection debate every year rather than every 10 years. Two RBs or a FB? 4 DL and 3 LB or 3 DL and 4 LB. FS and SS or just two S...
Bottom line is you can't please everyone. For every person who wants to be inclusive and have 4 LBs, there is someone who wants to keep it exclusive at just 3. And keep the team grounded in reality, 11 starters for each side of the ball..Much like us with our set addition polls, they go with the majority.
Like I said, I agree with their thought process but that certainly doesn't make it perfect. Like the HOF voting process, there is no perfect solution that will appease all.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I understand your argument but I wish the voters would look at the differences between the LB positions or go w/ 4 LB rather than 3. This might make sense as more teams are using the 3-4 now.
Tackles can be a deceiving stat b/c a guy can fall on a pile and get credit.
Ware isn't in a position to get alot of tackles b/c his job is to force ball carriers back into the inside. I think its hard to compare the two b/c one is inside and one is outside. Urlacher has the tackles, INT's and recoveries b/c he see's alot of action in the middle. Ware has alot of sacks b/c he rushes the passer. If they both were MLB or OLB this would be easier.lol
I agree, its nice to have something to debate during the offseason. I have enjoyed the discussion. >>
Problem is, they don't differentiate the All-Pro selections that way or Pro Bowl slots either...So why do it for the All-Decade? They don't..And didn't...But hey, 10 years from now the popular opinion could change...Who knows..
If you want a better insight on how they decided to stick with 11 on offense and 11 on defense, and how to populate those teams per position, read more into the All-Pro voting process. Most of the voters are actually the same as the HOF committee. And they go through the position selection debate every year rather than every 10 years. Two RBs or a FB? 4 DL and 3 LB or 3 DL and 4 LB. FS and SS or just two S...
Bottom line is you can't please everyone. For every person who wants to be inclusive and have 4 LBs, there is someone who wants to keep it exclusive at just 3. And keep the team grounded in reality, 11 starters for each side of the ball..Much like us with our set addition polls, they go with the majority.
Like I said, I agree with their thought process but that certainly doesn't make it perfect. Like the HOF voting process, there is no perfect solution that will appease all.
Jason >>
I thought the All Pro teams recognized 12 players on offense and defense? 2 RB's and a FB on offense and 4 LB's on defense.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
<< <i> I believe its more about what a guy does during his time w/ a team than the actual amount of time he's there. 5 years is enough time IMO to leave a lasting impression w/ a team. If an exeception can be made for Payton I don't know why Ware isn't deserving as well.
I wish they would weed out the positions b/c OLB and MLB require different skill sets. >>
It's BOTH...What he does and how long he does it..5 years? Really? I mean lasting impression, sure. But ALL-TIME GREAT, retire the number, Ring of Fame? 5 years? Not for me, not even CLOSE. All-Time requires the time part. They need to be GREAT for a long period. If a guy rushes for 2,400 yards one season, wins a Super Bowl, Super Bowl MVP then blows out his knee the next year and never plays again, he's an all-time great? HOFer? Come on, you got show CONSISTENT DOMINANCE, and 5 years simply is not enough. How many HOFers who didn't play in the 1920s played only 5 years???
With the LBs its a numbers game. Some teams play 4-3, some 3-4. Different skill sets (to a point) amongst all those. I mean strong side and weak side LB have different skill sets. Left Tackle and Right Tackle, different skill sets, X WR and Y WR, different skill sets. Left DE, right DE, different skill sets...But none of these are THAT different. I mean, this isn't rocket science, picking these All-Decade Teams.
Ware plays OLB in a 3-4. He is essentially an undersized or standup DE. His "skill set" is rushing the passer, so how do you compare him with the prototypical OLB who plays alot of coverage? Derrick Brooks for example...You can't. If you want to REALLY be fair, then Ware should be voted as a DE, in which case, he doesn't even make the team.
They took the 3 LB's with THE MOST VOTES. And I congratulate them for making the correct call. Heck, I'd buy Lance Briggs on the First team at OLB before Ware. Ware plays DE more than anything. Just look at his tackle totals vs. his sack totals vs. other LBs...But NONE of the second team guys have any business making the first team over the 3 first ballot LBs from the decade. Lewis, Brooks and Urlacher. Lewis and Brooks are two of the greatest LBs to ever play in the NFL! Ware is a nice player (I live in Arlington, TX BTW) but he's got a LONGGGG way to go before he becomes an all-timer. Let me see 3-5 more dominant years first and then we can lump him in with the Charles Haley's of the world...
Jason >>
well then should Reggie White be on the only time Packers Team or have his number retired?
playing years with GB 1993-1998. thats only 6 seasons. one more than 5. though he might be an exception like sayers.
Packers Fan for Life Collecting: Brett Favre Master Set Favre Ticket Stubs Favre TD Reciever Autos Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set Football HOF Rc's
<< <i> well then should Reggie White be on the only time Packers Team or have his number retired?
playing years with GB 1993-1998. thats only 6 seasons. one more than 5. though he might be an exception like sayers. >>
Reggie White is arguably a top 3-4 player of ALL TIME at his position. I think he would certainly qualify as an exception.
I think what we need to get away from here as looking for cut and dry, black and white answers. Unfortunately there are none in these cases. It's all a matter of degree. For me, 8 seasons is certainly enough. 5 is easily too few...6-7 seasons, well there's the gray area for me...It boils down to how dominant they were above #1, their peers playing in the same years, and #2, in comparison to other players all-time at the position or on the particular franchise.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I thought the All Pro teams recognized 12 players on offense and defense? 2 RB's and a FB on offense and 4 LB's on defense. >>
Yep, they added the FB's in 2004, and started the 4 LBs (off and on) since 1984. Which is exactly the reason I am saying you should look into their thought process for better insight. They didn't always vote for a FB, nor 4 LBs. So why did they change it? And why have they NOT changed the Safety's and split the votes between a FS and a SS? This will really assist you in understanding once you track down these answers.
In fact, the backlash due to adding the FB's, IMO, is the reason Lorenzo Neal is NOT listed as a First Team All-Decade selection. It's actually really interesting stuff if you're into politics..lol
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i> well then should Reggie White be on the only time Packers Team or have his number retired?
playing years with GB 1993-1998. thats only 6 seasons. one more than 5. though he might be an exception like sayers. >>
Reggie White is arguably a top 3-4 player of ALL TIME at his position. I think he would certainly qualify as an exception.
I think what we need to get away from here as looking for cut and dry, black and white answers. Unfortunately there are none in these cases. It's all a matter of degree. For me, 8 seasons is certainly enough. 5 is easily too few...6-7 seasons, well there's the gray area for me...It boils down to how dominant they were above #1, their peers playing in the same years, and #2, in comparison to other players all-time at the position or on the particular franchise.
Jason >>
so if favre plays 2 more years for the vikings and they never win a SB would he belong on their all time team set?
Packers Fan for Life Collecting: Brett Favre Master Set Favre Ticket Stubs Favre TD Reciever Autos Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set Football HOF Rc's
I thought the All Pro teams recognized 12 players on offense and defense? 2 RB's and a FB on offense and 4 LB's on defense. >>
Yep, they added the FB's in 2004, and started the 4 LBs (off and on) since 1984. Which is exactly the reason I am saying you should look into their thought process for better insight. They didn't always vote for a FB, nor 4 LBs. So why did they change it? And why have they NOT changed the Safety's and split the votes between a FS and a SS? This will really assist you in understanding once you track down these answers.
In fact, the backlash due to adding the FB's, IMO, is the reason Lorenzo Neal is NOT listed as a First Team All-Decade selection. It's actually really interesting stuff if you're into politics..lol
Jason >>
Can you point me in the right direction w/ some sites, search terms, or materials? I went w/ NFL Hall of Fame voting process but did not get much.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
<< <i> well then should Reggie White be on the only time Packers Team or have his number retired?
playing years with GB 1993-1998. thats only 6 seasons. one more than 5. though he might be an exception like sayers. >>
Reggie White is arguably a top 3-4 player of ALL TIME at his position. I think he would certainly qualify as an exception.
I think what we need to get away from here as looking for cut and dry, black and white answers. Unfortunately there are none in these cases. It's all a matter of degree. For me, 8 seasons is certainly enough. 5 is easily too few...6-7 seasons, well there's the gray area for me...It boils down to how dominant they were above #1, their peers playing in the same years, and #2, in comparison to other players all-time at the position or on the particular franchise.
Jason >>
so if favre plays 2 more years for the vikings and they never win a SB would he belong on their all time team set? >>
No...Not IMO..3 years with a team, regardless of what the player does is not enough, even for an exception to be considered one a franchise icon. White was an franchise player for both the Eagles and Packers. But I certainly wouldn't say the same about his days with the Panthers...Like I had mentioned previously..There is no black and white, cut and dray, 1+1= 2 answer. But there should be guidelines we follow. The easiest one being, if you WANTED to request Favre be added to the Vikings set, post here on the boards. get 10-15 opinions and then make an informed decision based on the sum of those opinions.
Had that happened with the Favre going to the 1990s Decade set, that request likley is never made. We as a group would have provided the correct info on what that set is comprised of (FIRST TEAM).
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Can you point me in the right direction w/ some sites, search terms, or materials? I went w/ NFL Hall of Fame voting process but did not get much. >>
Here's a start. Your home team HOF/AP voter. You'll want to read the musings of the various voters who help pick the teams. Straight from the horses mouths. Anything from anyone else (myself included) is nothing more than hearsay.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Thank-you for posting that. I like that he takes the initiative to differentiate between the positions but IMO Gosselin, and other voters are failing to recognize those players who excel in 3-4 defenses (besides Seymour). NT, 3-4 DE, and OLB all have different roles and there are many playes who shine as space eaters and pass rushers. Sometimes "making a play" in a 3-4 means taking on multiple blockers so the other guys can get the glory. That is why I like the 4 LB option.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
<< <i>Thank-you for posting that. I like that he takes the initiative to differentiate between the positions but IMO Gosselin, and other voters are failing to recognize those players who excel in 3-4 defenses (besides Seymour). NT, 3-4 DE, and OLB all have different roles and there are many playes who shine as space eaters and pass rushers. Sometimes "making a play" in a 3-4 means taking on multiple blockers so the other guys can get the glory. That is why I like the 4 LB option. >>
Now that I agree with you on. With Seymour, he was actually at a disadvantage in the All-Pro votes through the years, due to some voters casting a vote for him as a DT and others as a DE. Of course, he played 3-4 DE, which is more like a DT, it's not a pass rush position. But he was listed as a DE.
Gosselin is one of the few who takes the job of voting/selecting serious enough that he actually puts alot of thought and effort into it. Unfortunately, he is in the minority. It's a 2 way street though as far as who does and doesn't get the recognition, because like the HOF voting, SOMEONE is going to be left out. Spots are limited. If you are going to praise an OLB as the best OLB, and the reason being that he is a 3-4 pass rushing OLB with 12 sacks, it means you are going to overlook, leave out the 4-3 OLB who's great in coverage and makes a ton of tackles.
It's all relative, there is no right/wrong, black/white answer. Shades of gray and it's up to each of us to decide where our own opinion falls along that line. That's exactly what the voters do. They all have different opinions on things, and many of them change their opinions from year to year. But that's why they have a vote and let the majority opinion win out.
And the ONLY one I think they got wrong on the All-Decade team is Brady over Manning. IMO, Manning should have been first team, just like Favre should have been first team for the 1990s. In both circumstances, they put too much weight on number of championships and not enough on overall, game by game performance in the decade.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Thank-you for posting that. I like that he takes the initiative to differentiate between the positions but IMO Gosselin, and other voters are failing to recognize those players who excel in 3-4 defenses (besides Seymour). NT, 3-4 DE, and OLB all have different roles and there are many playes who shine as space eaters and pass rushers. Sometimes "making a play" in a 3-4 means taking on multiple blockers so the other guys can get the glory. That is why I like the 4 LB option. >>
Now that I agree with you on. With Seymour, he was actually at a disadvantage in the All-Pro votes through the years, due to some voters casting a vote for him as a DT and others as a DE. Of course, he played 3-4 DE, which is more like a DT, it's not a pass rush position. But he was listed as a DE.
Gosselin is one of the few who takes the job of voting/selecting serious enough that he actually puts alot of thought and effort into it. Unfortunately, he is in the minority. It's a 2 way street though as far as who does and doesn't get the recognition, because like the HOF voting, SOMEONE is going to be left out. Spots are limited. If you are going to praise an OLB as the best OLB, and the reason being that he is a 3-4 pass rushing OLB with 12 sacks, it means you are going to overlook, leave out the 4-3 OLB who's great in coverage and makes a ton of tackles.
It's all relative, there is no right/wrong, black/white answer. Shades of gray and it's up to each of us to decide where our own opinion falls along that line. That's exactly what the voters do. They all have different opinions on things, and many of them change their opinions from year to year. But that's why they have a vote and let the majority opinion win out.
And the ONLY one I think they got wrong on the All-Decade team is Brady over Manning. IMO, Manning should have been first team, just like Favre should have been first team for the 1990s. In both circumstances, they put too much weight on number of championships and not enough on overall, game by game performance in the decade.
Jason >>
I just like the option of having an extra spot on offense and defense for the FB and 4th OLB to accomodate the different schemes. The way the league is heading the ALL Pro team might need to go w/ 3 WR's and no FB.
Great point on the "shades of gray". I love the ambiguity b/c we can have fun discussions/debates like this.
I'm on the fence w/ Brady-Manning choice. I believe convincing arguments can be made for either player.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
Below is the list of 74 First Ballot Hall Of Fame Player rookie cards (only Players). Now I'm sure that a reader can find some surprises or exclusions but all-in-all it's a pretty impressive list of players that were selected in their first year of eligibility. These are players that were not snubbed by the voters even once. This is just me, but - I, for one, sure would be in awe of the Professional Football Hall Of Fame if this were it. This is what "exclusivity" looks like:
1933 GOUDEY SPORTS KINGS HAROLD (RED) GRANGE 3 6 1933 GOUDEY SPORTS KINGS JIM THORPE 4 1 1935 NATIONAL CHICLE EARL (DUTCH) CLARK 5 34 1935 NATIONAL CHICLE BRONKO NAGURSKI 6 6 1948 LEAF BOBBY LAYNE 7 34 1948 LEAF SAMMY BAUGH 8 52 1948 LEAF LEO NOMELLINI 9 54 1948 LEAF CHUCK BEDNARIK 10 35 1950 BOWMAN JOE PERRY 11 91 1951 BOWMAN EMLEN TUNNELL 12 96 1951 BOWMAN ERNIE STAUTNER 13 23 1952 BOWMAN GINO MARCHETTI 14 29 1952 BOWMAN HUGH MCELHENNY 15 127 1952 BOWMAN OLLIE MATSON 16 23 1954 BOWMAN GEORGE BLANDA 17 28 1955 TOPPS ALL AMERICAN MEL HEIN 18 56 1955 TOPPS ALL AMERICAN ERNIE NEVERS 19 97 1955 TOPPS ALL AMERICAN DON HUTSON 20 94 1957 TOPPS RAYMOND BERRY 21 119 1957 TOPPS BART STARR 22 138 1957 TOPPS JOHNNY UNITAS 23 62 1958 TOPPS JIM BROWN 24 132 1959 TOPPS JIM PARKER 25 56 1960 TOPPS FORREST GREGG 26 197 1961 FLEER JIM OTTO 27 72 1963 FLEER LANCE ALWORTH 28 44 1963 TOPPS DAVID (DEACON) JONES 29 82 1963 TOPPS BOB LILLY 30 96 1963 TOPPS RAY NITSCHKE 31 155 1963 TOPPS LARRY WILSON 32 91 1964 PHILADELPHIA MERLIN OLSEN 33 41 1965 PHILADELPHIA PAUL WARFIELD 34 46 1965 TOPPS WILLIE BROWN 35 31 1966 PHILADELPHIA DICK BUTKUS 36 38 1966 PHILADELPHIA GALE SAYERS 37 25 1970 TOPPS JAN STENERUD 38 90 1970 TOPPS O.J. SIMPSON 39 113 1971 TOPPS KEN HOUSTON 40 156 1971 TOPPS TERRY BRADSHAW 41 245 1971 TOPPS JOE GREENE 42 186 1972 TOPPS GENE UPSHAW 43 200 1972 TOPPS ROGER STAUBACH 44 89 1973 TOPPS FRANCO HARRIS 45 115 1973 TOPPS JACK HAM 46 341 1973 TOPPS JIM LANGER 47 383 1974 TOPPS JOHN HANNAH 48 12 1975 TOPPS MEL BLOUNT 49 367 1975 TOPPS DAN FOUTS 50 148 1976 TOPPS WALTER PAYTON 51 158 1976 TOPPS RANDY WHITE 52 220 1976 TOPPS JACK LAMBERT 53 177 1977 TOPPS STEVE LARGENT 54 315 1978 TOPPS TONY DORSETT 55 390 1979 TOPPS EARL CAMPBELL 56 216 1981 TOPPS JOE MONTANA 57 51 1982 TOPPS ANTHONY MUNOZ 58 434 1982 TOPPS LAWRENCE TAYLOR 59 486 1982 TOPPS RONNIE LOTT 60 38 1983 TOPPS MIKE SINGLETARY 61 294 1983 TOPPS MARCUS ALLEN 62 63 1984 TOPPS JOHN ELWAY 63 123 1984 TOPPS DAN MARINO 64 280 1984 TOPPS ERIC DICKERSON 65 286 1984 TOPPS JACKIE SLATER 66 380 1984 TOPPS DARRELL GREEN 67 36 1984 USFL JIM KELLY 68 52 1984 USFL STEVE YOUNG 69 58 1984 TOPPS USFL REGGIE WHITE 70 251 1985 TOPPS WARREN MOON 71 389 1986 TOPPS BRUCE SMITH 72 78 1989 SCORE ROD WOODSON 73 109 1989 SCORE BRUCE MATTHEWS 74 257 1989 SCORE BARRY SANDERS 75 270 1989 SCORE TROY AIKMAN
Good Morning all, I caught the tail end of the coversation about Reggie White and the Packers all time list so I wanted to bring a possible scenario to debate also. If Ricky Williams has a 1000 yd. season with 7 touchdowns with the Dolphins this year, he will have tied Larry Csonka's 8 year Miami record in 5 years (productive, not stoned). Would the members of the boards consider him for addition to the All-time Dolphins list ? Fast forward 2 or 3 more productive years, Hall of Fame consideration vs. previous transgressions.
Any team on any given Sunday, can beat any other team...unless they were playing the Miami Dolphins in 1972.
That is a tough question. Ricky had one amazing year with the Dolphins and also two good years. If he goes for well over a grand like 1350 this year and 12 TDs I say he makes the Dolphins team. If he goes for just 1000 he will need to do that again next year to make it in. IMO. The only way he makes the Pro Football HOF is back to 2000 yard seasons. I don't think he has a shot at the HOF.
The only way he makes the Pro Football HOF is back to 2000 yard seasons. I don't think he has a shot at the HOF. >>
Troy, Is that from a standpoint of statistical totals or to atone for his rasta hiatus ? Looking at recent runningbacks, Bettis, Faulk, Martin... (and of course this is all hypothetical and bias seeing as I am a Dolphin homer) 3 good productive years of 1000 yd + totals and perhaps 20+ TDs and a good showing in the playoffs, he would be statistically comparable. On the flip side, it did take Orlando Cepeda several years to be "forgiven" for much worse but did has his lapse of good judgement overlooked.
Any team on any given Sunday, can beat any other team...unless they were playing the Miami Dolphins in 1972.
<< <i>The only way he makes the Pro Football HOF is back to 2000 yard seasons. I don't think he has a shot at the HOF. >>
Troy, Is that from a standpoint of statistical totals or to atone for his rasta hiatus ? Looking at recent runningbacks, Bettis, Faulk, Martin... (and of course this is all hypothetical and bias seeing as I am a Dolphin homer) 3 good productive years of 1000 yd + totals and perhaps 20+ TDs and a good showing in the playoffs, he would be statistically comparable. On the flip side, it did take Orlando Cepeda several years to be "forgiven" for much worse but did has his lapse of good judgement overlooked. >>
More of a combo of both. He messed up pretty bad and yes, he has turned it around but that will sit sour in many voters minds. If he goes nuts for two-three years he has a shot to blind some voters on stats alone.
Ricky Watters is not in and does not get a sniff for votes. Top 20 all time rusher and when he retired he was 15th. I think both of these Ricky's are hosed for the HOF.
I don't think any 21st century running back is going to get HOF consideration with less than 12,000 yards...If Williams can get to 12,000 (which at his age and sharing the load with Ronnie Brown I would pretty much say is about 1 million-1 longshot) then maybe he gets some HOF discussion. I don't think his pot smoking will necessarily hurt him as much as his lack of dominant seasons. Realistically, he's had ONE in his career, 2002.
As far as All-Time Dolphins, for me personally, unless the guy was an MVP caliber player for multiple years on that franchise, the starting point is 6 season. He's played 6 seasons with the Dolphins, so you'll need to look at how important he has been, and also how good was he vs. the rest of the leagues RBs. For me, thus far in his Dolphin career, he hasn't been their #1 dominant type player, nor has he played on the same level as the other elite RB's in the league. You can't really compare him to Csonka, as they played in VERY different eras. Csonka was a difference maker who helped them win Championships and he did it for 8 years with the Dolphins.
Also, wanted to pass this along in reference to the 2000 All-Decade Team:
----Hi Jason,
We will not be loading basic/master sets for any of the NFL Teams of the Decades.
If you wish to list your special collection you can do so in the Collectors Showcase.
Thank you,
Gayle Kean-------
So, what we have, is all we will have as far as the 2000 Set goes. It doesn't match the other decade sets AT ALL, and PSA says they won;t do a basic/master (which is what I advocated). My only assumption is that eventually, ALL of the Decade sets will be comprised on the complete 53 man (or thereabouts) rosters. Expect it. I will not be deleting my 2000 Decade set, but will only be collecting the FIRST TEAM players on it. Will do the same with the other All-Decade sets if/when they get changed to reflect the entire decade rosters rather than the actual First team guys...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Do the collectors have any say in the set comp for the 2000 decade set, or is this a unilateral decision by PSA? I.E., is this something that they would allow the set collectors to vote on if the change to first-team-only were proposed as a set comp change?
Do the collectors have any say in the set comp for the 2000 decade set, or is this a unilateral decision by PSA? I.E., is this something that they would allow the set collectors to vote on if the change to first-team-only were proposed as a set comp change?
Jasen >>
Not sure brotha, but maybe an option at this point since PSA won't upload the 2000 Decade set that makes sense.
More info: The set was REQUESTED as a 53 man set by someone on the Registry. Because I asked the same thing as you, how did they (PSA) come to the conclusion that the 2000 team should be an entire 53 man roster rather than FIRST TEAM as all of the decade sets are set up. And that's what I was told.
I'm not going to pint any fingers, but I can tell you the 53 card set requester posts here. And AGAIN we go back to the debate we'd been having here in this thread. One guy goes out on his own and makes a request based on his own singular opinion and for his own advantage of getting free grades or registry certificates or whatever. Doesn't factor in anyone else's opinion, doesn't do what makes sense, in keeping in line with all of the other decade sets, or what would be the best way to make the set popular in the collecting community. IMO, it is/was a selfish decision, and now we are left with not being able to collect a first team set (sans collectors showcase), that I GUARANTEE would have more than 13 collectors and more than 1 guy at 90+% at this point... I mean how many collectors are REALLY going to try and complete this entire 53 card set, and how many would have gone after the 24 card FIRST TEAM. Some of the cards on the current set are so valueless, you'll lose money on grading fees alone. It's not conducive to a SUCCESSFUL MASS appeal set, and it's really sad that the only reason it is there is because "he requested it first".
It's just another in a LONG list of things that are ruining this once great registry. I've debated a sell off today of all non-HOF cards, but I'm going to sleep on it and try to talk myself out of it. At this point, I feel like we, as a group of smart informed collectors, are being buried by the all-inclusive collectors. Which eventually will cause all of our cards to be valued less and less as the set saturation continues. If I do decide to sell off all non-HOFers, I will post here for first dibs.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Maybe if more of us complain it will work. Not sure though. But considering it is completely out of line with the rest of the all decade team sets I cant understand why PSA would allow it to go forward. But then again they havent held the all time team sets to same bar as each other either. I guess this is the big can of worms when we have these key card sets. Though one would think that the precedent would have been set with all of the all decade teams that have been requested to date. I for one would not complete neither the Rookie card set that is up nor would I attmept the auto'd parallel set. I guess we will all just have to do our own showcases, that nearly no one looks at.
Jay
Packers Fan for Life Collecting: Brett Favre Master Set Favre Ticket Stubs Favre TD Reciever Autos Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set Football HOF Rc's
Maybe if more of us complain it will work. Not sure though. But considering it is completely out of line with the rest of the all decade team sets I cant understand why PSA would allow it to go forward. But then again they havent held the all time team sets to same bar as each other either. I guess this is the big can of worms when we have these key card sets. Though one would think that the precedent would have been set with all of the all decade teams that have been requested to date. I for one would not complete neither the Rookie card set that is up nor would I attmept the auto'd parallel set. I guess we will all just have to do our own showcases, that nearly no one looks at.
Jay >>
Maybe if we can get 20 collectors to upload their FIRST TEAM All-Decade set to the Showcase PSA will get the hint that it should be a competitive set on the Registry. Send the 53 card set to the Showcase and see how many actually chase set completion. I think I used the number before of 3. That is the number of collectors that SHOULD either complete or be attempting to complete a set to make it worth of even being on the Registry. If only 1 or 2 collectors want to complete a set, then the showcase is the place. But a mass appeal set SHOULD belong on the regular Registry. The competition helps drive values and in the long run, that helps all of us. But hey, I'm just trying to use common sense. I probably need to either leave the key card sets or attempt to turn off any logical thinking when viewing them. Gives me a headache even going in those sets anymore. Just a jumbled mess of near identical sets and half of them have cards/players that don't even belong. It's maddening and it shouldn't have to be that way.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I agree with you, the list is a who's who of the game's legends. It brings back my post about the Aussie Footy Hall of Fame and its separate "Legend" status category. There's no shortgage of argument over here about who should be granted legend status but one thing is for sure it's a select group. The AFL HOF has 227 members, with 157 players, 12 Umpires, 14 Coaches, 14 Administrators, 8 Media and the biggie, 22 Legends. They cap the Legends at 10% of the total figure. The website is crap and the selection process is flawed in its own way but compared to the North American HOF's it's about as good as it gets.
Hockey has the same problem as football (Gillies, Federko???) but since only 4 people actually watch hockey (they use multiple TV sets) no one really cares. Except me.
I like the idea of the 1st ballot list. I've printed it out and will start my own little quest.
Collecting HOF RC's in hockey, baseball, football and basketball. A fool's errand some have said.
<< <i>I'm not going to pint any fingers, but I can tell you the 53 card set requester posts here. And AGAIN we go back to the debate we'd been having here in this thread. One guy goes out on his own and makes a request based on his own singular opinion and for his own advantage of getting free grades or registry certificates or whatever. Doesn't factor in anyone else's opinion, doesn't do what makes sense, in keeping in line with all of the other decade sets, or what would be the best way to make the set popular in the collecting community. IMO, it is/was a selfish decision >>
Better point that finger somewhere else, because I didn't request the set.
<< <i>I'm not going to pint any fingers, but I can tell you the 53 card set requester posts here. And AGAIN we go back to the debate we'd been having here in this thread. One guy goes out on his own and makes a request based on his own singular opinion and for his own advantage of getting free grades or registry certificates or whatever. Doesn't factor in anyone else's opinion, doesn't do what makes sense, in keeping in line with all of the other decade sets, or what would be the best way to make the set popular in the collecting community. IMO, it is/was a selfish decision >>
Better point that finger somewhere else, because I didn't request the set. >>
Wait...I thought I didn't point any fingers? lol... Did I mention you at all? I don't mind you clearing your name since you are #3 on the set, and the only guy over 90%. BUT, lets not infer that I aimed anything in your direction, as I clearly did not and would not do that.
Like I said, I know who submitted it, and the guy posts on the boards, and has posted in this thread. Nough said. It was a selfish decision, and always is when sets/ player additions are requested that are to the benefit of the one collector requesting it, but not to anyone else. PERIOD.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
That is a truly awesome list, man. I think a great topic for discussion would be "who is the most glaring omission from this first-ballot HOF list?" My vote is going to "Automatic" Otto Graham. Other opinions???
That is a truly awesome list, man. I think a great topic for discussion would be "who is the most glaring omission from this first-ballot HOF list?" My vote is going to "Automatic" Otto Graham. Other opinions???
Jasen >>
I agree on Graham but would also add Motley from those '50's Browns teams.
While Sayers was a first-ballot guy I'm not sure he's the best representation of what it means to get inducted on the first try. I also have the same issue w/ Butkus over Schmidt. IMO a first ballot player does not necesarily represent an "elite" player.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
That is a truly awesome list, man. I think a great topic for discussion would be "who is the most glaring omission from this first-ballot HOF list?" My vote is going to "Automatic" Otto Graham. Other opinions???
Jasen >>
Oh I have a list...lol...Also have one containing guys who probably shouldn't have been first ballot. Keep in mind, timing has much to do with it. All depends on the competition for HOF spots that year. In a weak year a guy might sqeak in first ballot that otherwise might typically have to wait a couple of years. The one thing you can't debate on these first ballot guys is that ALL of them are deserving, lock, stock and barrel HOFers. No question. Anyway, here's my list:
SHOULD have been first ballot: Otto Graham- Playing many years in the AAFC was a negative, plus he was only overlook the first 2 years the HOF was in existence. Maybe they felt they had to get in all the old timers (Grange, Thorpe, Nagurski) first? Bulldog Turner- Dominant player but Mel Hein was the ONLY first ballot O.Lineman until Jim Parker in 1973. Hein was also a league MVP. Norm Van Brocklin- Passed over 5 times. He was a head coach during those 5 years, and a rather unsuccessful one at that. Can't think of any other reason. NightTrain Lane- Was considered a dirty player by many, could have hurt him. He got passed over 3 times, should have been first ballot. Joe Namath- I'll probably get beat up over this one. But his impact on the game during his peak was maybe the tops of all-time in football. The Michael Jordan of pro football at the time, even if he wasn't the greatest ever with the ball in his hands. He got passed over twice, but how do you write the history of the game without Namath in it? Mike Ditka- There was a TE bias for many years. Took Ditka 12 and Mackey 15, both should have been first ballot. John Mackey- See above. Mike Webster- Greatest Center of his era, top 3 all-time. Already had a bunch of 70's Steelers get in though, he got in 2nd ballot at least. Derrick Thomas- I guess because he was killed they felt they could wait? No clue. Was there ever a more dominant pass rusher from the LB position?
Now for the guys the players above should REPLACE on the first ballot list. Guys I don;t think would be deserving of the "Legend" or first ballot status: Ollie Matson- Good RB, HOF caliber, but I just don't see him in the same class as the other first ballot RBs. Was a weak class when he got selected, so that helped. Willie Brown- Great player, definite HOFer, but first ballot? Not so sure about that. And he went in over Namath? No way. Jan Stenerud- A kicker first ballot? Noooo, come on. Jim Langer- Another great player, definitely HOF caliber. But how does he go in first ballot and Kuechenberg can't even get in? Larry Little even had to wait 8 years! Jackie Slater- I know he played for like 100 years and all, but was he REALLY worthy of first ballot? There are a few players who I think should have went in ahead of him in 2001.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I agree on Graham but would also add Motley from those '50's Browns teams.
While Sayers was a first-ballot guy I'm not sure he's the best representation of what it means to get inducted on the first try. I also have the same issue w/ Butkus over Schmidt. IMO a first ballot player does not necesarily represent an "elite" player. >>
Joe Schmidt got elected in 1973, Butkus in 1979, so it wasn't a case of going in over or being selected before Schmidt. Butkus however was elite. Sayers was also elite. But were borderline on their time of service as injuries shortened both careers. But they were both "exception" type players. They transended the game and have both been mentioned as THE greatest to ever play their positions by some. Was there ever a more feared LB than Butkus? Maybe Nitschke...A RB more feared than Sayers with the ball in his hands? Maybe Jimmy Brown, maybe Barry Sanders. But it's a short list.
I would likely be ok with Motley as a first ballot guy, but like Graham, they were caught in the first years of the HOF as they were trying to get established. If Motley was first ballot in 1968, the year he was elected, then he would have had a shot. But i don't have an issue with him needing to wait a few as they cleared the backlog.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I agree on Graham but would also add Motley from those '50's Browns teams.
While Sayers was a first-ballot guy I'm not sure he's the best representation of what it means to get inducted on the first try. I also have the same issue w/ Butkus over Schmidt. IMO a first ballot player does not necesarily represent an "elite" player. >>
Joe Schmidt got elected in 1973, Butkus in 1979, so it wasn't a case of going in over or being selected before Schmidt. Butkus however was elite. Sayers was also elite. But were borderline on their time of service as injuries shortened both careers. But they were both "exception" type players. They transended the game and have both been mentioned as THE greatest to ever play their positions by some. Was there ever a more feared LB than Butkus? Maybe Nitschke...A RB more feared than Sayers with the ball in his hands? Maybe Jimmy Brown, maybe Barry Sanders. But it's a short list.
I would likely be ok with Motley as a first ballot guy, but like Graham, they were caught in the first years of the HOF as they were trying to get established. If Motley was first ballot in 1968, the year he was elected, then he would have had a shot. But i don't have an issue with him needing to wait a few as they cleared the backlog.
Jason >>
I did not see Schmidt, Nitschke, or Butkus play but I have read that Butkus was overrated and that Schmidt was the better player. From what I have read Schmidt was a sideline to sideline LB who could also make plays defending the pass. I guess my point is that Butkus is known for his big hits rather than his all round play.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
I agree on Graham but would also add Motley from those '50's Browns teams.
While Sayers was a first-ballot guy I'm not sure he's the best representation of what it means to get inducted on the first try. I also have the same issue w/ Butkus over Schmidt. IMO a first ballot player does not necesarily represent an "elite" player. >>
Joe Schmidt got elected in 1973, Butkus in 1979, so it wasn't a case of going in over or being selected before Schmidt. Butkus however was elite. Sayers was also elite. But were borderline on their time of service as injuries shortened both careers. But they were both "exception" type players. They transended the game and have both been mentioned as THE greatest to ever play their positions by some. Was there ever a more feared LB than Butkus? Maybe Nitschke...A RB more feared than Sayers with the ball in his hands? Maybe Jimmy Brown, maybe Barry Sanders. But it's a short list.
I would likely be ok with Motley as a first ballot guy, but like Graham, they were caught in the first years of the HOF as they were trying to get established. If Motley was first ballot in 1968, the year he was elected, then he would have had a shot. But I don't have an issue with him needing to wait a few as they cleared the backlog.
Jason >>
I did not see Schmidt, Nitschke, or Butkus play but I have read that Butkus was overrated and that Schmidt was the better player. From what I have read Schmidt was a sideline to sideline LB who could also make plays defending the pass. I guess my point is that Butkus is known for his big hits rather than his all round play. >>
That's a good point, and in some ways I do agree with you. What you have to remember about the HOF, and all HOF's in general is that being GREAT at one thing usually trumps being really good at a bunch of things. I'm not sure where you read Butkus was overrated, and to what degree. He was NOT a coverage guy, and wasn't asked to be (kinda like DeMarcus Ware..lol). He was the thumper, the enforcer, and did just fine sideline-to-sideline. Find some of his highlight reels, he ran down plenty of ball carries before the injuries hit. He made Offenses change the way they did business. Did Joe Schmidt have that affect? Not that I know of, but yes Schmidt was good at everything, and was a great HOF caliber player. I think it's easy to look at Schmidt's pro Bowl totals and assume he must have been better. But you have to keep in mind that he also played for 13 years. Give Butkus a 13 year career with no injuries and he probably has 12 Pro Bowls. What Schmidt didn't have was the persona, character and star power as Butkus. And like it or not, agree with it or not, that star power is what distinguishes one great player vs. another. As I said, there are MANY that consider Butkus the greatest LB of all-time, I've never ever heard anyone say that about Joe Schmidt.
When you think of All-Time LBs, who comes to mind? Arguably my top 10 LBs of all-time:
1-Lawrence Taylor 2-Dick Butkus 3-Jack Lambert 4-Chuck Bednarik 5-Ray Lewis 6-Mike Singletary 7-Ray Nitschke 8-Joe Schmidt 9-Junior Seau 10-Jack Ham
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Guys, I've thought it over the past 24 hours, and I've concluded that it's time to get out of the Key Card sets. 7+ years, it's started out really fun, but for me just isn't fun in those sets anymore. Between the 500 ridiculous sets and the "overlooked" cards of non-active players who weren't deserving of the sets for 6-7 years but now all of a sudden are worthy...Maybe I'm just old school and this is the new way moving forward, and if that's the case, I certainly feel like it's time to bow out and stick with what gives me enjoyment.
DEFINITELY will not be getting out of the HOF sets. I still enjoy those immensely, and will do my best to continue to care take these sets as best I can. The yearly voting we do here for the Modern and Senior sets is great fun and something I want to keep doing.
That being said, here are my initial offerings of Key Card Set cards. Going to give those on this thread a couple days head start before I start posting to the BST and/or on ebay. Used VCP as a guide, some of my prices are a little higher and some a little lower than VCP average, mostly based on eye appeal and relative rarity of the card coming available to the public. These prices INCLUDE shipping, no hidden fees. Will accept Checks, Money Orders and PayPal. See anything you need or want, shoot me a PM or e-mail at jabeduco@yahoo.com. If you need scans, most can be found on my Registry sets. If you don't see it there, let me know and I can e-mail.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Yes, guys love compiling and analyzing lists, especially sports fans. The list of 74 First Ballot Football HOF Players is fun to slice and dice. For some, it may make a more interesting set to pursue.
Well I know that it seems to be more the exception than the norm to write about the Football HOF Rookies cards on the Football HOF Rookies Message Board thread , but if you'll allow me the abject imposition...
It's interesting the #1 set appears to have just picked up one of the the two mint 1955 Topps All-American Ace Parker rookie cards. At last check, Parker is the oldest living Football HOFer at age 98.
Though I no longer collect this set, I recently scooped up the below card that happens to meet it's theme. However, I bought it for my All-Time Eagles Registry Set. Though I need this card in a PSA 8, it's addition moves me to #1 on the All-Time Eagles Set:
I agree on Graham but would also add Motley from those '50's Browns teams.
While Sayers was a first-ballot guy I'm not sure he's the best representation of what it means to get inducted on the first try. I also have the same issue w/ Butkus over Schmidt. IMO a first ballot player does not necesarily represent an "elite" player. >>
Joe Schmidt got elected in 1973, Butkus in 1979, so it wasn't a case of going in over or being selected before Schmidt. Butkus however was elite. Sayers was also elite. But were borderline on their time of service as injuries shortened both careers. But they were both "exception" type players. They transended the game and have both been mentioned as THE greatest to ever play their positions by some. Was there ever a more feared LB than Butkus? Maybe Nitschke...A RB more feared than Sayers with the ball in his hands? Maybe Jimmy Brown, maybe Barry Sanders. But it's a short list.
I would likely be ok with Motley as a first ballot guy, but like Graham, they were caught in the first years of the HOF as they were trying to get established. If Motley was first ballot in 1968, the year he was elected, then he would have had a shot. But I don't have an issue with him needing to wait a few as they cleared the backlog.
Jason >>
I did not see Schmidt, Nitschke, or Butkus play but I have read that Butkus was overrated and that Schmidt was the better player. From what I have read Schmidt was a sideline to sideline LB who could also make plays defending the pass. I guess my point is that Butkus is known for his big hits rather than his all round play. >>
That's a good point, and in some ways I do agree with you. What you have to remember about the HOF, and all HOF's in general is that being GREAT at one thing usually trumps being really good at a bunch of things. I'm not sure where you read Butkus was overrated, and to what degree. He was NOT a coverage guy, and wasn't asked to be (kinda like DeMarcus Ware..lol). He was the thumper, the enforcer, and did just fine sideline-to-sideline. Find some of his highlight reels, he ran down plenty of ball carries before the injuries hit. He made Offenses change the way they did business. Did Joe Schmidt have that affect? Not that I know of, but yes Schmidt was good at everything, and was a great HOF caliber player. I think it's easy to look at Schmidt's pro Bowl totals and assume he must have been better. But you have to keep in mind that he also played for 13 years. Give Butkus a 13 year career with no injuries and he probably has 12 Pro Bowls. What Schmidt didn't have was the persona, character and star power as Butkus. And like it or not, agree with it or not, that star power is what distinguishes one great player vs. another. As I said, there are MANY that consider Butkus the greatest LB of all-time, I've never ever heard anyone say that about Joe Schmidt.
When you think of All-Time LBs, who comes to mind? Arguably my top 10 LBs of all-time:
1-Lawrence Taylor 2-Dick Butkus 3-Jack Lambert 4-Chuck Bednarik 5-Ray Lewis 6-Mike Singletary 7-Ray Nitschke 8-Joe Schmidt 9-Junior Seau 10-Jack Ham >>
Its a bit difficult to develop an argument for Schmidt without seeing him play but looking over the first 9 years of his career he did make All Pro 7 times to Butkus's 5. I don't doubt what Butkus's could have been if healthy or on a better team but Schmidt actually did accomplish those things. He was the leader of championship defense and overall made the Pro Bowl and All Pro more than Butkus. Butkus did strike fear in the opposition but Schmidt was one of the first highly athletic LB's known for more than hitting.
I 100% agree on the star power, good or bad it has alot to do w/ reputation.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
<< <i> Its a bit difficult to develop an argument for Schmidt without seeing him play but looking over the first 9 years of his career he did make All Pro 7 times to Butkus's 5. I don't doubt what Butkus's could have been if healthy or on a better team but Schmidt actually did accomplish those things. He was the leader of championship defense and overall made the Pro Bowl and All Pro more than Butkus. Butkus did strike fear in the opposition but Schmidt was one of the first highly athletic LB's known for more than hitting.
I 100% agree on the star power, good or bad it has alot to do w/ reputation. >>
You can find highlight video and game footage. It's out there. Moreso on Butkus than Schmidt. If i can figure out how to rip one of my recorded DVDs, I'll try and figure out a way to post it to the net and provide a link for you. An important thing to remember is to not get too wrapped up in Pro Bowls or All-Pro's. Do they play a part? Certainly. 1st Team All-Pro selections carry some weight, as they are selected by the writers who covered the NFL during that particular season. The Pro Bowl however, being a popularity poll above all else, really doesn't carry much weight if we are discussing a "who was better" scenario.
I honestly don't remember ever reading, seeing or hearing anything that had Schmidt being considered a better LB than Butkus. By anyone in the football world. If you have, I'd love to read it and get an opinion from that prospective. Other than using the method of adding up totals (All-Pros and Pro Bowls) as your waypoint, I cant imagine any other way someone would view Schmidt as the better player. By using that as your only guide, really all it does is allow you to compare Schmidt to other LBs who played during the same years 1953-1965. When you try to compare players who played in different eras, you have to use a combination of accolades, stats, reputations, and eye test.
For some perspective, let's examine the All-Pro selections at LB during Schmidt's playing years.
8 times in his 13 years he was selected as 1st team. Bill George also played LB during this same period (1952-1966), so their careers overlapped. Bill George is also an 8 time 1st team All-Pro selection. The next closest LBs who played during Schmidt's years are Chuck Bednarik (1949-1962) with 3 selections (at LB) although he didn't play much LB after 1957, mostly Center. So his 3 All-Pro's at LB were between 1953-1957. Also with 3 1st team All-Pros during Schmidt's career: Bill Forester and Joe Fortunato. So clearly, George and Schmidt were the best MLB's of their era. But there a couple of interesting caveats to this....
1-The position of MLB didn't exist until 1956, at least not as we know it today. Invented by Tom Landry, who was the Giants D coordinator at the time, and his guinea pig was one Mr. Sam Huff. Prior to that, the guy in the middle was called a Middle Guard, and he was essentially the 5th D Lineman in a 5-2 set up. So Schmidt and George were among the first to be used as MLBs along with Sam Huff. Trailblazers for sure, but they also had the advantage that not many other teams had that type of player. In a 4-3, the MLB is the guy the defense is typically built around. By the time Butkus came into the league, MLB was an established position. Most, if not all, teams were using it and had acquired players who understood and were trained to play in the spot. Unlike the 50's, when it was easier to be a the "top" LB, because the competition wasn't that great.
2-It wasn't until 1962 that the AP began to distinguish MLB/OLB in the voting. Prior to that, All LBs, MLB and OLB were simply voted as LB. This was another advantage as George AND Schmidt were able to claim 1st Team All-Pro spots all as MLBs in 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1961. Beginning in 1962, ONLY ONE MLB was chosen along with two OLBs. This is an advantage guys like Dick Butkus did not enjoy. Butkus had to split the ONE AND ONLY 1st team MLB position with Nitschke, Nobis and Lanier. Under the system Schmidt enjoyed, Butkus most likely would have had 8 Pro Bowls and 8 1st Team All-Pro's in hsi first 8 seasons. Instead, you had guys like Wayne Walker, LeeRoy Caffey, Mike Curtis and Chuck Howley getting 1st Team All-Pros at OLB, while either Butkus or Nitschke got bumped as a 2nd team All-Pro since only ONE of them could be selected.
Anyway, just wanted to provide some framework to show my point that simply looking at a guys totals or a guys stats does NOT tell the whole story. You have to dig a little deeper if you want to use the All-Pros and the Pro Bowls and what not to explain why one player was better than another.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i> Its a bit difficult to develop an argument for Schmidt without seeing him play but looking over the first 9 years of his career he did make All Pro 7 times to Butkus's 5. I don't doubt what Butkus's could have been if healthy or on a better team but Schmidt actually did accomplish those things. He was the leader of championship defense and overall made the Pro Bowl and All Pro more than Butkus. Butkus did strike fear in the opposition but Schmidt was one of the first highly athletic LB's known for more than hitting.
I 100% agree on the star power, good or bad it has alot to do w/ reputation. >>
You can find highlight video and game footage. It's out there. Moreso on Butkus than Schmidt. If i can figure out how to rip one of my recorded DVDs, I'll try and figure out a way to post it to the net and provide a link for you. An important thing to remember is to not get too wrapped up in Pro Bowls or All-Pro's. Do they play a part? Certainly. 1st Team All-Pro selections carry some weight, as they are selected by the writers who covered the NFL during that particular season. The Pro Bowl however, being a popularity poll above all else, really doesn't carry much weight if we are discussing a "who was better" scenario.
I honestly don't remember ever reading, seeing or hearing anything that had Schmidt being considered a better LB than Butkus. By anyone in the football world. If you have, I'd love to read it and get an opinion from that prospective. Other than using the method of adding up totals (All-Pros and Pro Bowls) as your waypoint, I cant imagine any other way someone would view Schmidt as the better player. By using that as your only guide, really all it does is allow you to compare Schmidt to other LBs who played during the same years 1953-1965. When you try to compare players who played in different eras, you have to use a combination of accolades, stats, reputations, and eye test.
For some perspective, let's examine the All-Pro selections at LB during Schmidt's playing years.
8 times in his 13 years he was selected as 1st team. Bill George also played LB during this same period (1952-1966), so their careers overlapped. Bill George is also an 8 time 1st team All-Pro selection. The next closest LBs who played during Schmidt's years are Chuck Bednarik (1949-1962) with 3 selections (at LB) although he didn't play much LB after 1957, mostly Center. So his 3 All-Pro's at LB were between 1953-1957. Also with 3 1st team All-Pros during Schmidt's career: Bill Forester and Joe Fortunato. So clearly, George and Schmidt were the best MLB's of their era. But there a couple of interesting caveats to this....
1-The position of MLB didn't exist until 1956, at least not as we know it today. Invented by Tom Landry, who was the Giants D coordinator at the time, and his guinea pig was one Mr. Sam Huff. Prior to that, the guy in the middle was called a Middle Guard, and he was essentially the 5th D Lineman in a 5-2 set up. So Schmidt and George were among the first to be used as MLBs along with Sam Huff. Trailblazers for sure, but they also had the advantage that not many other teams had that type of player. In a 4-3, the MLB is the guy the defense is typically built around. By the time Butkus came into the league, MLB was an established position. Most, if not all, teams were using it and had acquired players who understood and were trained to play in the spot. Unlike the 50's, when it was easier to be a the "top" LB, because the competition wasn't that great.
2-It wasn't until 1962 that the AP began to distinguish MLB/OLB in the voting. Prior to that, All LBs, MLB and OLB were simply voted as LB. This was another advantage as George AND Schmidt were able to claim 1st Team All-Pro spots all as MLBs in 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1961. Beginning in 1962, ONLY ONE MLB was chosen along with two OLBs. This is an advantage guys like Dick Butkus did not enjoy. Butkus had to split the ONE AND ONLY 1st team MLB position with Nitschke, Nobis and Lanier. Under the system Schmidt enjoyed, Butkus most likely would have had 8 Pro Bowls and 8 1st Team All-Pro's in hsi first 8 seasons. Instead, you had guys like Wayne Walker, LeeRoy Caffey, Mike Curtis and Chuck Howley getting 1st Team All-Pros at OLB, while either Butkus or Nitschke got bumped as a 2nd team All-Pro since only ONE of them could be selected.
Anyway, just wanted to provide some framework to show my point that simply looking at a guys totals or a guys stats does NOT tell the whole story. You have to dig a little deeper if you want to use the All-Pros and the Pro Bowls and what not to explain why one player was better than another.
Jason >>
That fact that Schmidt was one of the pioneers of the position should be a positive b/c he demonstrated an excellent ability to read defenses and make plays (per the HOF player page).
Schmidt might have benefited from the general LB All Pro or he still might have been awarded the distinction. I think it is something that can be debated either way. The same can be said for Butkus and the other MLB if the had the option of the general LB ALL Pro label. Howley and Curtis were pretty darn good LB's and might have found their way into the mix any ways.
Thanks for posting the info on the All Pro's b/c it does provide a reference point.
I wish I could remember where I saw the Schmidt argument.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
<< <i>That fact that Schmidt was one of the pioneers of the position should be a positive b/c he demonstrated an excellent ability to read defenses and make plays (per the HOF player page).
Schmidt might have benefited from the general LB All Pro or he still might have been awarded the distinction. I think it is something that can be debated either way. The same can be said for Butkus and the other MLB if the had the option of the general LB ALL Pro label. Howley and Curtis were pretty darn good LB's and might have found their way into the mix any ways.
Thanks for posting the info on the All Pro's b/c it does provide a reference point.
I wish I could remember where I saw the Schmidt argument. >>
What being a pioneer does is put him in the discussion of the top 10 LBs of all time. Because of what he did and WHEN he did it. But we are comparing players here, and specifcally the skill set each player brought to the field.
As far as the LB position changing to being identifed as MLB, there is no debate, that it reduced the number of possible 1st Team All-Pro MLBs from 3 (which happened in 1958= Schmidt, George, Huff) to 1. I wish I had the vote count that far back, but unfortunately I do not. But I can tell you that the ONLY year prior to his injury in 1973 that he was not either 1st team or 2nd team (meaning top 2 MLB in football that season) was 1967. That year, Nobis was 1st Team and Nitschke 2nd. And Nobis that year (unofficially) had over 200 solo tackles in 14 games (BEAST).
Really, the only knock on Butkus was that he never won a Championship. But if you look at those Bears teams from his era, other than Sayers, man they were GARBAGE talent wise. They had Atkins and Ditka for a couple of those years but really only so much an MLB can do to actually WIN games for his team...lol
I'd love to read that article as well as see who exactly wrote it. Some unknown blogger who was simply counting up Pro Bowls and All-Pros, or was it a respected football historian who witnessed the play of both players? I doubt it would CHANGE my opinion, but at least might give me a reason to rank Schmidt even higher on my list of All-Time LBs. Here are a couple of reference points for you in the debate from third party opinions:
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
First time on the ballot: Deion Sanders Marshall Faulk William Roaf Curtis Martin Jerome Bettis Bill Cowher Dick Vermeil Jimmy Smith Doug Flutie
Finalists from 2010: Shannon Sharpe Richard Dent Andre Reed Dermontti Dawson Cortez Kennedy Cris Carter Tim Brown Charles Haley Roger Craig Don Coryell
Due to the strength of the first ballot nominees this year, I believe we will see a MINIMUM of 3 first ballot selections. Leaving just 2 slots from all the other modern candidates.
How I see them... Tier 1-100% Guarantee LOCKS: Deion Sanders Marshall Faulk
Tier 2-50% chance or better (All should make the finals): William Roaf Curtis Martin Jerome Bettis Shannon Sharpe Richard Dent Andre Reed Dermontti Dawson Cortez Kennedy
Tier 3-25-49% chance (all should make the semi-finals and/or finals): Bill Cowher Cris Carter Tim Brown Charles Haley Ray Guy
Tier 4- Less than 25% Longshots: Aeneas Williams Roger Craig Lester Hayes Don Coryell Terrell Davis Kevin Greene Paul Tagliabue Chris Doleman Gary Anderson Steve Tasker
I believe the other 3 modern selections will all come from the tier 2 group. None of the Tier 4 longshots have the juice to crack this super strong class. Although it is Lester Hayes last shot, but not a good year for it, especially with Ray Guy having his last chance as well. The Tier 3 guys are the sleepers, who could make a surprise run via a big push.
Ray Guy--Last shot..I think they put him in the top 15, and will discuss him one last time "in the room". Many voters want him in, but still quite a few that do not. 50/50 on Guy this year. A good (new)argument could very well do the trick.
Charles Haley--Haley is still behind Richard Dent in the pass rushers group. But I wouldn't rule out a push for him though that could surprise and leapfrog Dent. Seems to be the norm lately.
Cris Carter--Carter and Brown have now fallen behind Andre Reed in the WR group. Either player COULD make the top 15, but doesn't look like either will get in before Reed. And they won't take 2 WR's this class. Not impossible, but unlikely.
Tim Brown--See above
Bill Cowher--Will depend on how much the voters think he will eventually coach again. It is seeming more likely each year, so I'm guessing they hold off on Cowher based on that.
That leaves the Tier 2 guys, question is, which 3 get the call?
Faulk vs. Martin and Bettis.....Marshall is the best of the group and should cruise to a first ballot induction. The question is, how bad will it hurt Bettis and Martin? IMO, the difference is large enough that neither Bettis or Martin will measure up close enough to Faulk. I think both Bettis AND Martin end up waiting until next year.
Roaf vs. Dawson.....One of these guys will snag the 3rd Spot. My money is on Roaf, but with Bettis and Cowher (Steelers getting denied) Dawson could be the consolation prize.
Dent vs. Kennedy....One of these should grab the 4th spot. Both have been so very close recently. Deion and one of these two DLs would make for a very fair defensive representation. As stated above, don't rule out Haley leapfrogging both of these guys. My money is on Dent. I lost that bet last year, but sticking with him. He would have been the 6th modern HOFer if they allowed that many.
Sharpe vs. Reed....Last spot will likely be filled by one of these 2 pass catchers. These guys are a dead heat, but personally I'd prefer Sharpe first so that's my pick. But EASILY I could see Reed getting in to clear up the WR backlog. This is the spot Ray Guy, Cris Carter or Tim Brown could also possibly take.
In summary...My June 2010 predictions for the Class of 2011:
Deion Sanders Marshall Faulk Willie Roaf Richard Dent Shannon Sharpe
Anyone else seeing or hearing anything differently? Not much chatter yet I know. That will start around August when they start the process of selecting the Senior candidates.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I agree on Graham but would also add Motley from those '50's Browns teams.
While Sayers was a first-ballot guy I'm not sure he's the best representation of what it means to get inducted on the first try. I also have the same issue w/ Butkus over Schmidt. IMO a first ballot player does not necesarily represent an "elite" player. >>
Joe Schmidt got elected in 1973, Butkus in 1979, so it wasn't a case of going in over or being selected before Schmidt. Butkus however was elite. Sayers was also elite. But were borderline on their time of service as injuries shortened both careers. But they were both "exception" type players. They transended the game and have both been mentioned as THE greatest to ever play their positions by some. Was there ever a more feared LB than Butkus? Maybe Nitschke...A RB more feared than Sayers with the ball in his hands? Maybe Jimmy Brown, maybe Barry Sanders. But it's a short list.
I would likely be ok with Motley as a first ballot guy, but like Graham, they were caught in the first years of the HOF as they were trying to get established. If Motley was first ballot in 1968, the year he was elected, then he would have had a shot. But I don't have an issue with him needing to wait a few as they cleared the backlog.
Jason >>
I did not see Schmidt, Nitschke, or Butkus play but I have read that Butkus was overrated and that Schmidt was the better player. From what I have read Schmidt was a sideline to sideline LB who could also make plays defending the pass. I guess my point is that Butkus is known for his big hits rather than his all round play. >>
That's a good point, and in some ways I do agree with you. What you have to remember about the HOF, and all HOF's in general is that being GREAT at one thing usually trumps being really good at a bunch of things. I'm not sure where you read Butkus was overrated, and to what degree. He was NOT a coverage guy, and wasn't asked to be (kinda like DeMarcus Ware..lol). He was the thumper, the enforcer, and did just fine sideline-to-sideline. Find some of his highlight reels, he ran down plenty of ball carries before the injuries hit. He made Offenses change the way they did business. Did Joe Schmidt have that affect? Not that I know of, but yes Schmidt was good at everything, and was a great HOF caliber player. I think it's easy to look at Schmidt's pro Bowl totals and assume he must have been better. But you have to keep in mind that he also played for 13 years. Give Butkus a 13 year career with no injuries and he probably has 12 Pro Bowls. What Schmidt didn't have was the persona, character and star power as Butkus. And like it or not, agree with it or not, that star power is what distinguishes one great player vs. another. As I said, there are MANY that consider Butkus the greatest LB of all-time, I've never ever heard anyone say that about Joe Schmidt.
When you think of All-Time LBs, who comes to mind? Arguably my top 10 LBs of all-time:
1-Lawrence Taylor 2-Dick Butkus 3-Jack Lambert 4-Chuck Bednarik 5-Ray Lewis 6-Mike Singletary 7-Ray Nitschke 8-Joe Schmidt 9-Junior Seau 10-Jack Ham >>
Hello everyone, As you know, I don't post on this thread very often, but this topic brought to mind a story that I want to share. As you may or may not know, I live in Canton, Ohio , and every month, a local promoter has a card show / autograph session. For a little over three years, I have been the person that takes the autograph guest ( nearly always football, and usually a Hall of Famer ) out to eat after the show, and then take them to the airport. I have even managed to get four of them over to my house to see my extensive autograph collection. I want to prefice this by saying, # 1, I was VERY surprised at what he said to me and # 2, I do NOT want to say his name, but , trust me , this IS a true story. A couple of years ago, I got to take out an outstanding offensive lineman to eat and for almost 2 hours got to talk football and life with him. Let's just say, if you add up his , # 1 Pro Bowl selections, # 2, his 1st team ALL-PRO selections , # 3, his 2nd team ALL PRO selections, and 4th, his Super Bowl Championship teams, you WILL be double digits. Anyway, I was asking him about the best linebackers he ever played against, and he told me, WITHOUT A DOUBT, the BEST linebacker he ever played against was Mike Curtis. I was pretty surprised, and asked him about Lambert. He basically said was , Lambert was a product of his envirnment, of having 2 monsters right in front of him ( Greene & Holmes ) a Hall of Famer on one side ( Ham ) and a guy who should be in the Hall ( Russell ) on the other side of him. He said that Lambert was good against the run, ( reminding me of who he had right in front of him ) but, when it came to pass coverage, he was VERY unimpressed with his speed, and coverage skills of going side to side, or dropping back. Mike Curtis he said, had FAR inferior talent around him, and was far superior, not only in pass coverage, but against the run as well, and he said , Curtis was much more effective at shedding his blockers. Just thought I'd pass that along. Rocke
WANTED:Football Hall of Fame Autograph's;Hugh Ray,Tim Mara,Charles Bidwell,Walt Kiesling,Bill Hewitt,Len Ford,Fritz Pollard,Curly Lambeau,Steve Owen & Joe Carr. FOR SALE : 100's of auto'd HoF 8x10's & dozen's of auto'd HoF cards.
Great story, thanks for sharing. I love watching Curtis as well. I guess I just have a soft spot for the evil, wicked, mean and nasty defensive players...lol..Unfortunately for him, not enough others, such as the O-Lineman you sat down with feel the same about Curtis. Much like Chris Hanburger, seems to be a forgotten man when it comes to the HOF...So many great LBs from the 60s-70s, you could ask 10 HOF O-Lineman who played in that era and probably get 10 different "Greatest ever" stories...
Building on your story, thought I'd post some of the Sports Illustrated article from 1984 that named Lambert the "Greatest MLB of All-Time". It was written by Dr. Z, who before his stroke, was widely considered one of the premier football historians of the century. Dr. Z never played, but he hung his hat on the fact that he watch EVER PLAY over EVERY GAME. He would review game film and grade players all off-season. His opinions when it comes to HOF candidacy are 2nd to no one. Anyway, like your story, it's a great read.
By Paul Zimmerman As published in Sports Illustrated July 30, 1984
At one time middle linebackers roamed the league like Goliaths. Nitschke, Butkus, Schmidt -- names as tough as the people who carried them. Wille Lanier, with the pad he wore on the front of his helmet. Mike Curtis, the Animal. Bob Griese talks about staring across the line at Butkus and feeling his legs turn to jelly. Gene Upshaw, the Raiders' ex-guard, remembers the terror he felt when he looked into Lanier's eyes.
But then a few years ago, something sad happed to these great middle linebackers. The 3-4 defense robbed them of their identity. They divided, like an amoeba. Instead of one, there were two of them, inside strong and inside weak, or, in the Steelers' case, left and right. The great gunfighters of the past had gone corporate. It was if Wyatt Earp had taken on a job with Pinkerton's, or Bat Masterson had become director of security for the National Bank. It happened to Harry Carson with the Giants, then to Jack Reynolds when he went from the Rams to the 49ers. And then the last of them, the last of the great old middle linebackers, Jack Lambert, got his two years ago.
"Oh yes, Mr. Lambert, I've heard of you. And what position do you play, Mr. Lambert?" And instead of snarling out "middle linebacker" through chipped and broken teeth, Lambert would answer "inside linebacker left." Sounds like a traffic signal.
Oh, there are still middle linebackers -- seven of them. They belong to the seven NFL teams that continue to use the 4-3 as their basic defense, but most of them are 60% players. They get the hook on passing downs, when the defense goes into its nickel. There's the Bears' Mike Singletary, the best of the bunch, but the rest of the names won't quicken the pulse; Ken Fantetti, David Ahrens, Neal Olkewicz, Bob Crable, Bob Breunig, Fulton Kuykendall -- all good steady workers, but there's no magic there. So can you blame Lambert for trying to recapture a little of the old imagery, some of the old glamor -- and terror -- that went with the position?
Actually, if you look at Lambert's career with the Steelers you find a remarkable collection of big plays in big situations, but no trail of bloodied and broken bodies; you find very little to justify all the adjectives and mayhem that give writers so many easy off-day features. Lambert hits hard, of course. Always has, ever since his high school days.
Four incidents, fairly evenly spaced, helped nurture and feed the Lambert image. First there was the Cliff Harris affair in the Super Bowl after the '75 season, Lambert's second year. In the third quarter the Steelers' Roy Gerela missed a 33-yard field goal. Harris, the Cowboys' free safety, tapped Gerela on the helmet and said, "Way to go." Lambert flung him to the ground. No flag was thrown, but referee Norm Schacter was on the verge of kicking Lambert out of the game. Lambert talked him out of it.
"Jack Lambert," Pittsburgh coach Chuck Noll said afterword, "is a defender of what is right."
Then there were the three Brian Sipe incidents, during the '78, '81, and '83 seasons, three set pieces from the same script. Each time Lambert hit the Cleveland quarterback as he was releasing the ball. Too late, decided the referee, who was Ben Dreith the last two times. Each time Lambert got mobbed by the Browns' bench, each time he was flagged, and twice he was ejected from the game and fined by the league.
After the '78 hit he spent 20 minutes in Pete Rozelle's office. Lambert explained he had crossed both arms in front of him to soften the blow. The hit was still late, Rozelle said. [Ed. Note: This was the hit that spawned Lambert's famous "Quarterbacks should wear dresses" quote during a Monday Night interview with Howard Cosell the following week.]
"I asked him, 'How about the guys who came off the bench and mobbed me?'" Lambert says. "'Were they fined?' He said, 'No, but they got very strong warnings.'"
In the dressing room after the '81 game, the writers asked Lambert about the play.
"Dreith said I hit Sipe too hard," Lambert said.
"Did you?"
"I hit him as hard as I could."
Noll defended Lambert in '83. He said what the Browns did to Lambert on the sidelines was "criminal... they kicked him where no young man should be kicked."
In the locker room the writers asked Lambert abut it again. Same play, same ref. It was getting a bit old. He capsuled the situation in his terse and hard-bitten style: "Brian has a chance to go out of bounds and he decides not to. He knows I'm going to hit him. And I do. History."
Andy Russell, a successful businessman in Pittsburgh these days, shakes his head when asked about the Lambert image.
"Tough, raw-boned, intense," Russell says, "that's the way he'll be remembered, but I've seen a lot of guys like that come into the league. No, Jack's a whole lot more. The range he has... they put him into coverage 30 yardsdownfield. They gave him assignments that old Bears or Packers never would've dreamed of. He brought a whole new concept to the position, and that's why, for me anyway, he's the greatest there has ever been. His first step is never wrong, his techniques have always been perfect. His greatness has nothing to do with his popular image."
The image. Close your eyes and you can see Lambert ranging from sideline to sideline in the old 4-3 days, a big wingless bird, half an inch over 6'4", barely 220 pounds, alwayssquared up to the line, always around the ball. He has made Pro Bowl in 9 of his 10 years and leads active players for appearances. He missed out only in his rookie season. [Ed. Note: Lambert was defensive rookie of the year in '74]. He has led the Steelers in tackles all 10. They didn't keep stats for tackles and assists in the old days, but he probably has more than any Steeler ever.
"Last year, when the Bengals beat Pittsburgh, they ran 75 plays," says Mike Giddings, who operates a private scouting service and grades all NFL players. "Lambert was in on 31 tackles. He had 22 at halftime. I don't see how his body could stand it."
"Bud Carson was the defensive coach, and having Lambert allowed him to do things that had been unheard of," Russell says. "Bud had him covering the tight end all over the field. He'd assign him the first back out of the backfield. Normally the middle linebacker covered the second back, which is a piece of cake; he's just a floater. But the first back, my God, it was thought to be an impossible assignment for a middle linebacker. He'd have Lambert making calls and changing the defense three, four, five times when we'd play a team like the Cowboys that kept changing their sets. No one ever tried to match the Cowboys call for call. Usually Dallas would get a team into some kind of simplistic zone, and that's when Staubach went to work, but Carson would have us changing our calls as many times as they changed sets. And Jack had to know everything, call everything."
Against the run he'd read everything right, always get leverage and balance on the blocker. "There wasn't an NFL center who could cut him off on a sweep," Russell says. "He'd read and he was gone."
Al Davis remembers a play Lambert made in the '75 season's AFC Championship game against the Raiders. "There were seven seconds left and we were down 16-10," he says. "We hit Cliff Branch deep down the sideline and he was going to lateral to Ted Kwalick, our tight end. Lambert read it and positioned himself on Kwalick to take the lateral away, and Mel Blount tackled Branch on the 15-yard line. It ws a great play by Lambert, a great read, and it never showed up in the stats."
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>That fact that Schmidt was one of the pioneers of the position should be a positive b/c he demonstrated an excellent ability to read defenses and make plays (per the HOF player page).
Schmidt might have benefited from the general LB All Pro or he still might have been awarded the distinction. I think it is something that can be debated either way. The same can be said for Butkus and the other MLB if the had the option of the general LB ALL Pro label. Howley and Curtis were pretty darn good LB's and might have found their way into the mix any ways.
Thanks for posting the info on the All Pro's b/c it does provide a reference point.
I wish I could remember where I saw the Schmidt argument. >>
What being a pioneer does is put him in the discussion of the top 10 LBs of all time. Because of what he did and WHEN he did it. But we are comparing players here, and specifcally the skill set each player brought to the field.
As far as the LB position changing to being identifed as MLB, there is no debate, that it reduced the number of possible 1st Team All-Pro MLBs from 3 (which happened in 1958= Schmidt, George, Huff) to 1. I wish I had the vote count that far back, but unfortunately I do not. But I can tell you that the ONLY year prior to his injury in 1973 that he was not either 1st team or 2nd team (meaning top 2 MLB in football that season) was 1967. That year, Nobis was 1st Team and Nitschke 2nd. And Nobis that year (unofficially) had over 200 solo tackles in 14 games (BEAST).
Really, the only knock on Butkus was that he never won a Championship. But if you look at those Bears teams from his era, other than Sayers, man they were GARBAGE talent wise. They had Atkins and Ditka for a couple of those years but really only so much an MLB can do to actually WIN games for his team...lol
I'd love to read that article as well as see who exactly wrote it. Some unknown blogger who was simply counting up Pro Bowls and All-Pros, or was it a respected football historian who witnessed the play of both players? I doubt it would CHANGE my opinion, but at least might give me a reason to rank Schmidt even higher on my list of All-Time LBs. Here are a couple of reference points for you in the debate from third party opinions:
My point on being a pioneer centered on Schmidt's dynamic ability to read offenses and attack plays. He was demonstrating an outstanding skill set for a position still in its infancy.
True, the 1 first team would have hurt Schmidt, George, or Huff but w/out the vote it hard to know where each placed.
I can't fault Butkus for not winning a Championship on those terrible Bear's teams, but I can't ignore that Schmidt won two either. IMO winning a championship only helps a great player look better.
Thanks for posting the links. I wish Butkus would have stayed healthy and had a longer career. As a person who never saw him play it does seem like he's more a product of star power and the years he was especially dominant prior to the knee injuries. He was better in pass coverage than I thought and he was a devastating hitter, I just feel he wasn't great over a prolonged period of time.
I want to say it was link a friend sent me off the pro football researchers site but I'm not sure.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
My point on being a pioneer centered on Schmidt's dynamic ability to read offenses and attack plays. He was demonstrating an outstanding skill set for a position still in its infancy.
True, the 1 first team would have hurt Schmidt, George, or Huff but w/out the vote it hard to know where each placed.
I can't fault Butkus for not winning a Championship on those terrible Bear's teams, but I can't ignore that Schmidt won two either. IMO winning a championship only helps a great player look better.
Thanks for posting the links. I wish Butkus would have stayed healthy and had a longer career. As a person who never saw him play it does seem like he's more a product of star power and the years he was especially dominant prior to the knee injuries. He was better in pass coverage than I thought and he was a devastating hitter, I just feel he wasn't great over a prolonged period of time.
I want to say it was link a friend sent me off the pro football researchers site but I'm not sure. >>
Point well taken. He and Sam Huff were really the first "QB of the defense" MLBs. And it's why he is considered one of the best to ever play the position. Just not THE best.
On the link, I know one of the PFRA members, Sean Lehman is an avid Butkus basher. I'd be willing to bet if it was a story written for PFRA's Coffin Corner periodical, that Lehman wrote it. It's not an uncommon theme. There are Unitas bashers, Jim Brown bashers, Emmitt Smith bashers, Barry Sanders bashers, etc. When you are widely considered one of, if not the best to ever play your position, the ''over rated" theme is what others use when they have a differing opinion. You can find positives and negatives on every single player who's ever played the game. There are no "perfect" players.
Butkus had an 8 year run in which he played so well , and was so dominant (for mostly crappy teams) that he was considered the STANDARD to which all other MLBs are compared to this day..40+ years later! The NCAA award for best linebacker each year is the Butkus award. He took what Chuck Bednarik and NightTrain Lane started and he made it an art form.
If you've never seen Butkus play, you should find some footage. I'm sure YouTube or Hulu has got something. Maybe even NFL Network online. He was Ray Lewis in his prime, but meaner. I love watching Butkus, and if you enjoy see hard hits and helmets getting torn off, you gotta see the guy in action. Lambert was the smaller version who could cover. But played with the same demeanor, the way football was meant to be played. Not like the basketball on grass you mostly see today.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Comments
<< <i>
That could hurt guys that start their careers in the middle of a decade. Payton would not be the first team back for the 70's then. >>
Absolutely it could..And SHOULD...Its the same debate as the All-Time Teams. If a guy plays 5 years with a team, goes to 4 Pro Bowls and wins a Championship, is he REALLY one of the greatest players in that franchise's history? Only 5 years? To me that's tunnel vision, and that's voting with your emotions and not your head.
I didn't say the committee has NEVER selected a guy with 5 years to the first team..Just that they didn't this decade, and that was the right call. When the case is extraordinary, such as Sweetness, or say Gale Sayers in the HOF then absolutely exceptions should be made..But to say the committee should have left off Brian Urlacher and instead put DeMarcus Ware on the first team to me is crazy. And personally, I am thankfully they didn't get THAT into the weeds at the LB position. Hey, some voters do. They selected the best LEFT and RIGHT Tackles rather than the top 2 Tackles..The best LOLB and ROLB. It's a technique, and it's the minority opinion, but hey it's a free country.
Personally, the only one I disagree with is Brady over Manning. I get the titles thing, but if I'm picking the best QB of the decade, it's Peyton..Seems to be the minority opinion, but I think I've watched every snap either of these guys have ever taken in a game and for me Manning is one of the best I've ever seen. Brady is GREAT, but Manning is unstoppable 90% of the time he's on the field. Brady is more like 60% unstoppable. But he does play better at crunch time, so I guess that was enough to garner first team...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
That could hurt guys that start their careers in the middle of a decade. Payton would not be the first team back for the 70's then. >>
Absolutely it could..And SHOULD...Its the same debate as the All-Time Teams. If a guy plays 5 years with a team, goes to 4 Pro Bowls and wins a Championship, is he REALLY one of the greatest players in that franchise's history? Only 5 years? To me that's tunnel vision, and that's voting with your emotions and not your head.
I didn't say the committee has NEVER selected a guy with 5 years to the first team..Just that they didn't this decade, and that was the right call. When the case is extraordinary, such as Sweetness, or say Gale Sayers in the HOF then absolutely exceptions should be made..But to say the committee should have left off Brian Urlacher and instead put DeMarcus Ware on the first team to me is crazy. And personally, I am thankfully they didn't get THAT into the weeds at the LB position. Hey, some voters do. They selected the best LEFT and RIGHT Tackles rather than the top 2 Tackles..The best LOLB and ROLB. It's a technique, and it's the minority opinion, but hey it's a free country.
Personally, the only one I disagree with is Brady over Manning. I get the titles thing, but if I'm picking the best QB of the decade, it's Peyton..Seems to be the minority opinion, but I think I've watched every snap either of these guys have ever taken in a game and for me Manning is one of the best I've ever seen. Brady is GREAT, but Manning is unstoppable 90% of the time he's on the field. Brady is more like 60% unstoppable. But he does play better at crunch time, so I guess that was enough to garner first team...
Jason >>
I believe its more about what a guy does during his time w/ a team than the actual amount of time he's there. 5 years is enough time IMO to leave a lasting impression w/ a team. If an exeception can be made for Payton I don't know why Ware isn't deserving as well.
I wish they would weed out the positions b/c OLB and MLB require different skill sets.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
I believe its more about what a guy does during his time w/ a team than the actual amount of time he's there. 5 years is enough time IMO to leave a lasting impression w/ a team. If an exeception can be made for Payton I don't know why Ware isn't deserving as well.
I wish they would weed out the positions b/c OLB and MLB require different skill sets. >>
It's BOTH...What he does and how long he does it..5 years? Really? I mean lasting impression, sure. But ALL-TIME GREAT, retire the number, Ring of Fame? 5 years? Not for me, not even CLOSE. All-Time requires the time part. They need to be GREAT for a long period. If a guy rushes for 2,400 yards one season, wins a Super Bowl, Super Bowl MVP then blows out his knee the next year and never plays again, he's an all-time great? HOFer? Come on, you got show CONSISTENT DOMINANCE, and 5 years simply is not enough. How many HOFers who didn't play in the 1920s played only 5 years???
With the LBs its a numbers game. Some teams play 4-3, some 3-4. Different skill sets (to a point) amongst all those. I mean strong side and weak side LB have different skill sets. Left Tackle and Right Tackle, different skill sets, X WR and Y WR, different skill sets. Left DE, right DE, different skill sets...But none of these are THAT different. I mean, this isn't rocket science, picking these All-Decade Teams.
Ware plays OLB in a 3-4. He is essentially an undersized or standup DE. His "skill set" is rushing the passer, so how do you compare him with the prototypical OLB who plays alot of coverage? Derrick Brooks for example...You can't. If you want to REALLY be fair, then Ware should be voted as a DE, in which case, he doesn't even make the team.
They took the 3 LB's with THE MOST VOTES. And I congratulate them for making the correct call. Heck, I'd buy Lance Briggs on the First team at OLB before Ware. Ware plays DE more than anything. Just look at his tackle totals vs. his sack totals vs. other LBs...But NONE of the second team guys have any business making the first team over the 3 first ballot LBs from the decade. Lewis, Brooks and Urlacher. Lewis and Brooks are two of the greatest LBs to ever play in the NFL! Ware is a nice player (I live in Arlington, TX BTW) but he's got a LONGGGG way to go before he becomes an all-timer. Let me see 3-5 more dominant years first and then we can lump him in with the Charles Haley's of the world...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I believe its more about what a guy does during his time w/ a team than the actual amount of time he's there. 5 years is enough time IMO to leave a lasting impression w/ a team. If an exeception can be made for Payton I don't know why Ware isn't deserving as well.
I wish they would weed out the positions b/c OLB and MLB require different skill sets. >>
It's BOTH...What he does and how long he does it..5 years? Really? I mean lasting impression, sure. But ALL-TIME GREAT, retire the number, Ring of Fame? 5 years? Not for me, not even CLOSE. All-Time requires the time part. They need to be GREAT for a long period. If a guy rushes for 2,400 yards one season, wins a Super Bowl, Super Bowl MVP then blows out his knee the next year and never plays again, he's an all-time great? HOFer? Come on, you got show CONSISTENT DOMINANCE, and 5 years simply is not enough. How many HOFers who didn't play in the 1920s played only 5 years???
With the LBs its a numbers game. Some teams play 4-3, some 3-4. Different skill sets (to a point) amongst all those. I mean strong side and weak side LB have different skill sets. Left Tackle and Right Tackle, different skill sets, X WR and Y WR, different skill sets. Left DE, right DE, different skill sets...But none of these are THAT different. I mean, this isn't rocket science, picking these All-Decade Teams.
Ware plays OLB in a 3-4. He is essentially an undersized or standup DE. His "skill set" is rushing the passer, so how do you compare him with the prototypical OLB who plays alot of coverage? Derrick Brooks for example...You can't. If you want to REALLY be fair, then Ware should be voted as a DE, in which case, he doesn't even make the team.
They took the 3 LB's with THE MOST VOTES. And I congratulate them for making the correct call. Heck, I'd buy Lance Briggs on the First team at OLB before Ware. Ware plays DE more than anything. Just look at his tackle totals vs. his sack totals vs. other LBs...But NONE of the second team guys have any business making the first team over the 3 first ballot LBs from the decade. Lewis, Brooks and Urlacher. Lewis and Brooks are two of the greatest LBs to ever play in the NFL! Ware is a nice player (I live in Arlington, TX BTW) but he's got a LONGGGG way to go before he becomes an all-timer. Let me see 3-5 more dominant years first and then we can lump him in with the Charles Haley's of the world...
Jason >>
I agree that the example RB would not be an all-time great but I'm guessing he would have earned a spot in the team's hof or ring of honor.
True that Ware is used as a pass rusher in the 3-4 but he excels in that role to the point where he can wreck offenses. He's not asked to cover so I don't believe that should be held against him. If the individual LB positions aren't worth recognizing then why not just go w/ OL and DL?
I'm not sure Urlacher is a HOF at this point. IMO he has benefited from playing in Chicago and receiving extra attention b/c of the whole "Monsters of the Midway" tradition. He kind of reminds me of Nickerson but in a bigger market.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
I agree that the example RB would not be an all-time great but I'm guessing he would have earned a spot in the team's hof or ring of honor.
True that Ware is used as a pass rusher in the 3-4 but he excels in that role to the point where he can wreck offenses. He's not asked to cover so I don't believe that should be held against him. If the individual LB positions aren't worth recognizing then why not just go w/ OL and DL?
I'm not sure Urlacher is a HOF at this point. IMO he has benefited from playing in Chicago and receiving extra attention b/c of the whole "Monsters of the Midway" tradition. He kind of reminds me of Nickerson but in a bigger market. >>
He wouldn't be on the Cowboys Ring of Honor, that's for sure! lol...So what you've described is a LDE/Pass Rusher. Ware averages exactly 3.475 tackles per game. I mean there are LDE's who make more tackles. If he played for a 4-3 team, would he play DE or LB?
They differentiate certain positions, because the "skill set" you spoke of IS that big of a difference. OL/DL being a prime example. DT vs. DE? HUGE...OC vs. OT? HUGE difference. LCB vs. RCB? Not that different. LDE vs. RDE? Not that different. Hey, I don't make the rules man, start e-mailing the HOF voters with those type questions...You can also ask why they still put two RBs on the first team, but no FB on the first team. Based on conversations I have had with HOF voters, these things are done via consensus and because they make sense to the majority at the time.
OK, let's end this debate and let's compare Urlacher vs. Ware this decade:
Urlacher-6 Pro Bowls, 4 1st Team All-Pros, 816 tackles, 37.5 sacks, 17 INTs, 9 fumble recoveries, NFC Championship
Ware-4 Pro Bowls, 3 1st Team All-Pros, 280 tackles, 64.5 sacks, 1 INT, 2 fumble recoveries
Based on this, you still think Ware was a better player last decade? Cowboy bias aside, are they really even close....lol
Although we haven't found a middle ground here, it's been a fun debate. Good to get some football debates in during the off-season.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I agree that the example RB would not be an all-time great but I'm guessing he would have earned a spot in the team's hof or ring of honor.
True that Ware is used as a pass rusher in the 3-4 but he excels in that role to the point where he can wreck offenses. He's not asked to cover so I don't believe that should be held against him. If the individual LB positions aren't worth recognizing then why not just go w/ OL and DL?
I'm not sure Urlacher is a HOF at this point. IMO he has benefited from playing in Chicago and receiving extra attention b/c of the whole "Monsters of the Midway" tradition. He kind of reminds me of Nickerson but in a bigger market. >>
He wouldn't be on the Cowboys Ring of Honor, that's for sure! lol...So what you've described is a LDE/Pass Rusher. Ware averages exactly 3.475 tackles per game. I mean there are LDE's who make more tackles. If he played for a 4-3 team, would he play DE or LB?
They differentiate certain positions, because the "skill set" you spoke of IS that big of a difference. OL/DL being a prime example. DT vs. DE? HUGE...OC vs. OT? HUGE difference. LCB vs. RCB? Not that different. LDE vs. RDE? Not that different. Hey, I don't make the rules man, start e-mailing the HOF voters with those type questions...You can also ask why they still put two RBs on the first team, but no FB on the first team. Based on conversations I have had with HOF voters, these things are done via consensus and because they make sense to the majority at the time.
OK, let's end this debate and let's compare Urlacher vs. Ware this decade:
Urlacher-6 Pro Bowls, 4 1st Team All-Pros, 816 tackles, 37.5 sacks, 17 INTs, 9 fumble recoveries, NFC Championship
Ware-4 Pro Bowls, 3 1st Team All-Pros, 280 tackles, 64.5 sacks, 1 INT, 2 fumble recoveries
Based on this, you still think Ware was a better player last decade? Cowboy bias aside, are they really even close....lol
Although we haven't found a middle ground here, it's been a fun debate. Good to get some football debates in during the off-season.
Jason >>
I understand your argument but I wish the voters would look at the differences between the LB positions or go w/ 4 LB rather than 3. This might make sense as more teams are using the 3-4 now.
Tackles can be a deceiving stat b/c a guy can fall on a pile and get credit.
Ware isn't in a position to get alot of tackles b/c his job is to force ball carriers back into the inside. I think its hard to compare the two b/c one is inside and one is outside. Urlacher has the tackles, INT's and recoveries b/c he see's alot of action in the middle. Ware has alot of sacks b/c he rushes the passer. If they both were MLB or OLB this would be easier.lol
I agree, its nice to have something to debate during the offseason. I have enjoyed the discussion.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
I understand your argument but I wish the voters would look at the differences between the LB positions or go w/ 4 LB rather than 3. This might make sense as more teams are using the 3-4 now.
Tackles can be a deceiving stat b/c a guy can fall on a pile and get credit.
Ware isn't in a position to get alot of tackles b/c his job is to force ball carriers back into the inside. I think its hard to compare the two b/c one is inside and one is outside. Urlacher has the tackles, INT's and recoveries b/c he see's alot of action in the middle. Ware has alot of sacks b/c he rushes the passer. If they both were MLB or OLB this would be easier.lol
I agree, its nice to have something to debate during the offseason. I have enjoyed the discussion. >>
Problem is, they don't differentiate the All-Pro selections that way or Pro Bowl slots either...So why do it for the All-Decade? They don't..And didn't...But hey, 10 years from now the popular opinion could change...Who knows..
If you want a better insight on how they decided to stick with 11 on offense and 11 on defense, and how to populate those teams per position, read more into the All-Pro voting process. Most of the voters are actually the same as the HOF committee. And they go through the position selection debate every year rather than every 10 years. Two RBs or a FB? 4 DL and 3 LB or 3 DL and 4 LB. FS and SS or just two S...
Bottom line is you can't please everyone. For every person who wants to be inclusive and have 4 LBs, there is someone who wants to keep it exclusive at just 3. And keep the team grounded in reality, 11 starters for each side of the ball..Much like us with our set addition polls, they go with the majority.
Like I said, I agree with their thought process but that certainly doesn't make it perfect. Like the HOF voting process, there is no perfect solution that will appease all.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I understand your argument but I wish the voters would look at the differences between the LB positions or go w/ 4 LB rather than 3. This might make sense as more teams are using the 3-4 now.
Tackles can be a deceiving stat b/c a guy can fall on a pile and get credit.
Ware isn't in a position to get alot of tackles b/c his job is to force ball carriers back into the inside. I think its hard to compare the two b/c one is inside and one is outside. Urlacher has the tackles, INT's and recoveries b/c he see's alot of action in the middle. Ware has alot of sacks b/c he rushes the passer. If they both were MLB or OLB this would be easier.lol
I agree, its nice to have something to debate during the offseason. I have enjoyed the discussion. >>
Problem is, they don't differentiate the All-Pro selections that way or Pro Bowl slots either...So why do it for the All-Decade? They don't..And didn't...But hey, 10 years from now the popular opinion could change...Who knows..
If you want a better insight on how they decided to stick with 11 on offense and 11 on defense, and how to populate those teams per position, read more into the All-Pro voting process. Most of the voters are actually the same as the HOF committee. And they go through the position selection debate every year rather than every 10 years. Two RBs or a FB? 4 DL and 3 LB or 3 DL and 4 LB. FS and SS or just two S...
Bottom line is you can't please everyone. For every person who wants to be inclusive and have 4 LBs, there is someone who wants to keep it exclusive at just 3. And keep the team grounded in reality, 11 starters for each side of the ball..Much like us with our set addition polls, they go with the majority.
Like I said, I agree with their thought process but that certainly doesn't make it perfect. Like the HOF voting process, there is no perfect solution that will appease all.
Jason >>
I thought the All Pro teams recognized 12 players on offense and defense? 2 RB's and a FB on offense and 4 LB's on defense.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I believe its more about what a guy does during his time w/ a team than the actual amount of time he's there. 5 years is enough time IMO to leave a lasting impression w/ a team. If an exeception can be made for Payton I don't know why Ware isn't deserving as well.
I wish they would weed out the positions b/c OLB and MLB require different skill sets. >>
It's BOTH...What he does and how long he does it..5 years? Really? I mean lasting impression, sure. But ALL-TIME GREAT, retire the number, Ring of Fame? 5 years? Not for me, not even CLOSE. All-Time requires the time part. They need to be GREAT for a long period. If a guy rushes for 2,400 yards one season, wins a Super Bowl, Super Bowl MVP then blows out his knee the next year and never plays again, he's an all-time great? HOFer? Come on, you got show CONSISTENT DOMINANCE, and 5 years simply is not enough. How many HOFers who didn't play in the 1920s played only 5 years???
With the LBs its a numbers game. Some teams play 4-3, some 3-4. Different skill sets (to a point) amongst all those. I mean strong side and weak side LB have different skill sets. Left Tackle and Right Tackle, different skill sets, X WR and Y WR, different skill sets. Left DE, right DE, different skill sets...But none of these are THAT different. I mean, this isn't rocket science, picking these All-Decade Teams.
Ware plays OLB in a 3-4. He is essentially an undersized or standup DE. His "skill set" is rushing the passer, so how do you compare him with the prototypical OLB who plays alot of coverage? Derrick Brooks for example...You can't. If you want to REALLY be fair, then Ware should be voted as a DE, in which case, he doesn't even make the team.
They took the 3 LB's with THE MOST VOTES. And I congratulate them for making the correct call. Heck, I'd buy Lance Briggs on the First team at OLB before Ware. Ware plays DE more than anything. Just look at his tackle totals vs. his sack totals vs. other LBs...But NONE of the second team guys have any business making the first team over the 3 first ballot LBs from the decade. Lewis, Brooks and Urlacher. Lewis and Brooks are two of the greatest LBs to ever play in the NFL! Ware is a nice player (I live in Arlington, TX BTW) but he's got a LONGGGG way to go before he becomes an all-timer. Let me see 3-5 more dominant years first and then we can lump him in with the Charles Haley's of the world...
Jason >>
well then should Reggie White be on the only time Packers Team or have his number retired?
playing years with GB 1993-1998. thats only 6 seasons. one more than 5. though he might be an exception like sayers.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>
well then should Reggie White be on the only time Packers Team or have his number retired?
playing years with GB 1993-1998. thats only 6 seasons. one more than 5. though he might be an exception like sayers. >>
Reggie White is arguably a top 3-4 player of ALL TIME at his position. I think he would certainly qualify as an exception.
I think what we need to get away from here as looking for cut and dry, black and white answers. Unfortunately there are none in these cases. It's all a matter of degree. For me, 8 seasons is certainly enough. 5 is easily too few...6-7 seasons, well there's the gray area for me...It boils down to how dominant they were above #1, their peers playing in the same years, and #2, in comparison to other players all-time at the position or on the particular franchise.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
I thought the All Pro teams recognized 12 players on offense and defense? 2 RB's and a FB on offense and 4 LB's on defense. >>
Yep, they added the FB's in 2004, and started the 4 LBs (off and on) since 1984. Which is exactly the reason I am saying you should look into their thought process for better insight. They didn't always vote for a FB, nor 4 LBs. So why did they change it? And why have they NOT changed the Safety's and split the votes between a FS and a SS? This will really assist you in understanding once you track down these answers.
In fact, the backlash due to adding the FB's, IMO, is the reason Lorenzo Neal is NOT listed as a First Team All-Decade selection. It's actually really interesting stuff if you're into politics..lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
well then should Reggie White be on the only time Packers Team or have his number retired?
playing years with GB 1993-1998. thats only 6 seasons. one more than 5. though he might be an exception like sayers. >>
Reggie White is arguably a top 3-4 player of ALL TIME at his position. I think he would certainly qualify as an exception.
I think what we need to get away from here as looking for cut and dry, black and white answers. Unfortunately there are none in these cases. It's all a matter of degree. For me, 8 seasons is certainly enough. 5 is easily too few...6-7 seasons, well there's the gray area for me...It boils down to how dominant they were above #1, their peers playing in the same years, and #2, in comparison to other players all-time at the position or on the particular franchise.
Jason >>
so if favre plays 2 more years for the vikings and they never win a SB would he belong on their all time team set?
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>
<< <i>
I thought the All Pro teams recognized 12 players on offense and defense? 2 RB's and a FB on offense and 4 LB's on defense. >>
Yep, they added the FB's in 2004, and started the 4 LBs (off and on) since 1984. Which is exactly the reason I am saying you should look into their thought process for better insight. They didn't always vote for a FB, nor 4 LBs. So why did they change it? And why have they NOT changed the Safety's and split the votes between a FS and a SS? This will really assist you in understanding once you track down these answers.
In fact, the backlash due to adding the FB's, IMO, is the reason Lorenzo Neal is NOT listed as a First Team All-Decade selection. It's actually really interesting stuff if you're into politics..lol
Jason >>
Can you point me in the right direction w/ some sites, search terms, or materials? I went w/ NFL Hall of Fame voting process but did not get much.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
well then should Reggie White be on the only time Packers Team or have his number retired?
playing years with GB 1993-1998. thats only 6 seasons. one more than 5. though he might be an exception like sayers. >>
Reggie White is arguably a top 3-4 player of ALL TIME at his position. I think he would certainly qualify as an exception.
I think what we need to get away from here as looking for cut and dry, black and white answers. Unfortunately there are none in these cases. It's all a matter of degree. For me, 8 seasons is certainly enough. 5 is easily too few...6-7 seasons, well there's the gray area for me...It boils down to how dominant they were above #1, their peers playing in the same years, and #2, in comparison to other players all-time at the position or on the particular franchise.
Jason >>
so if favre plays 2 more years for the vikings and they never win a SB would he belong on their all time team set? >>
No...Not IMO..3 years with a team, regardless of what the player does is not enough, even for an exception to be considered one a franchise icon. White was an franchise player for both the Eagles and Packers. But I certainly wouldn't say the same about his days with the Panthers...Like I had mentioned previously..There is no black and white, cut and dray, 1+1= 2 answer. But there should be guidelines we follow. The easiest one being, if you WANTED to request Favre be added to the Vikings set, post here on the boards. get 10-15 opinions and then make an informed decision based on the sum of those opinions.
Had that happened with the Favre going to the 1990s Decade set, that request likley is never made. We as a group would have provided the correct info on what that set is comprised of (FIRST TEAM).
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
Can you point me in the right direction w/ some sites, search terms, or materials? I went w/ NFL Hall of Fame voting process but did not get much. >>
Here's a start. Your home team HOF/AP voter. You'll want to read the musings of the various voters who help pick the teams. Straight from the horses mouths. Anything from anyone else (myself included) is nothing more than hearsay.
Link
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>Thank-you for posting that. I like that he takes the initiative to differentiate between the positions but IMO Gosselin, and other voters are failing to recognize those players who excel in 3-4 defenses (besides Seymour). NT, 3-4 DE, and OLB all have different roles and there are many playes who shine as space eaters and pass rushers. Sometimes "making a play" in a 3-4 means taking on multiple blockers so the other guys can get the glory. That is why I like the 4 LB option. >>
Now that I agree with you on. With Seymour, he was actually at a disadvantage in the All-Pro votes through the years, due to some voters casting a vote for him as a DT and others as a DE. Of course, he played 3-4 DE, which is more like a DT, it's not a pass rush position. But he was listed as a DE.
Gosselin is one of the few who takes the job of voting/selecting serious enough that he actually puts alot of thought and effort into it. Unfortunately, he is in the minority. It's a 2 way street though as far as who does and doesn't get the recognition, because like the HOF voting, SOMEONE is going to be left out. Spots are limited. If you are going to praise an OLB as the best OLB, and the reason being that he is a 3-4 pass rushing OLB with 12 sacks, it means you are going to overlook, leave out the 4-3 OLB who's great in coverage and makes a ton of tackles.
It's all relative, there is no right/wrong, black/white answer. Shades of gray and it's up to each of us to decide where our own opinion falls along that line. That's exactly what the voters do. They all have different opinions on things, and many of them change their opinions from year to year. But that's why they have a vote and let the majority opinion win out.
And the ONLY one I think they got wrong on the All-Decade team is Brady over Manning. IMO, Manning should have been first team, just like Favre should have been first team for the 1990s. In both circumstances, they put too much weight on number of championships and not enough on overall, game by game performance in the decade.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>Thank-you for posting that. I like that he takes the initiative to differentiate between the positions but IMO Gosselin, and other voters are failing to recognize those players who excel in 3-4 defenses (besides Seymour). NT, 3-4 DE, and OLB all have different roles and there are many playes who shine as space eaters and pass rushers. Sometimes "making a play" in a 3-4 means taking on multiple blockers so the other guys can get the glory. That is why I like the 4 LB option. >>
Now that I agree with you on. With Seymour, he was actually at a disadvantage in the All-Pro votes through the years, due to some voters casting a vote for him as a DT and others as a DE. Of course, he played 3-4 DE, which is more like a DT, it's not a pass rush position. But he was listed as a DE.
Gosselin is one of the few who takes the job of voting/selecting serious enough that he actually puts alot of thought and effort into it. Unfortunately, he is in the minority. It's a 2 way street though as far as who does and doesn't get the recognition, because like the HOF voting, SOMEONE is going to be left out. Spots are limited. If you are going to praise an OLB as the best OLB, and the reason being that he is a 3-4 pass rushing OLB with 12 sacks, it means you are going to overlook, leave out the 4-3 OLB who's great in coverage and makes a ton of tackles.
It's all relative, there is no right/wrong, black/white answer. Shades of gray and it's up to each of us to decide where our own opinion falls along that line. That's exactly what the voters do. They all have different opinions on things, and many of them change their opinions from year to year. But that's why they have a vote and let the majority opinion win out.
And the ONLY one I think they got wrong on the All-Decade team is Brady over Manning. IMO, Manning should have been first team, just like Favre should have been first team for the 1990s. In both circumstances, they put too much weight on number of championships and not enough on overall, game by game performance in the decade.
Jason >>
I just like the option of having an extra spot on offense and defense for the FB and 4th OLB to accomodate the different schemes. The way the league is heading the ALL Pro team might need to go w/ 3 WR's and no FB.
Great point on the "shades of gray". I love the ambiguity b/c we can have fun discussions/debates like this.
I'm on the fence w/ Brady-Manning choice. I believe convincing arguments can be made for either player.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
1933 GOUDEY SPORTS KINGS HAROLD (RED) GRANGE
3 6 1933 GOUDEY SPORTS KINGS JIM THORPE
4 1 1935 NATIONAL CHICLE EARL (DUTCH) CLARK
5 34 1935 NATIONAL CHICLE BRONKO NAGURSKI
6 6 1948 LEAF BOBBY LAYNE
7 34 1948 LEAF SAMMY BAUGH
8 52 1948 LEAF LEO NOMELLINI
9 54 1948 LEAF CHUCK BEDNARIK
10 35 1950 BOWMAN JOE PERRY
11 91 1951 BOWMAN EMLEN TUNNELL
12 96 1951 BOWMAN ERNIE STAUTNER
13 23 1952 BOWMAN GINO MARCHETTI
14 29 1952 BOWMAN HUGH MCELHENNY
15 127 1952 BOWMAN OLLIE MATSON
16 23 1954 BOWMAN GEORGE BLANDA
17 28 1955 TOPPS ALL AMERICAN MEL HEIN
18 56 1955 TOPPS ALL AMERICAN ERNIE NEVERS
19 97 1955 TOPPS ALL AMERICAN DON HUTSON
20 94 1957 TOPPS RAYMOND BERRY
21 119 1957 TOPPS BART STARR
22 138 1957 TOPPS JOHNNY UNITAS
23 62 1958 TOPPS JIM BROWN
24 132 1959 TOPPS JIM PARKER
25 56 1960 TOPPS FORREST GREGG
26 197 1961 FLEER JIM OTTO
27 72 1963 FLEER LANCE ALWORTH
28 44 1963 TOPPS DAVID (DEACON) JONES
29 82 1963 TOPPS BOB LILLY
30 96 1963 TOPPS RAY NITSCHKE
31 155 1963 TOPPS LARRY WILSON
32 91 1964 PHILADELPHIA MERLIN OLSEN
33 41 1965 PHILADELPHIA PAUL WARFIELD
34 46 1965 TOPPS WILLIE BROWN
35 31 1966 PHILADELPHIA DICK BUTKUS
36 38 1966 PHILADELPHIA GALE SAYERS
37 25 1970 TOPPS JAN STENERUD
38 90 1970 TOPPS O.J. SIMPSON
39 113 1971 TOPPS KEN HOUSTON
40 156 1971 TOPPS TERRY BRADSHAW
41 245 1971 TOPPS JOE GREENE
42 186 1972 TOPPS GENE UPSHAW
43 200 1972 TOPPS ROGER STAUBACH
44 89 1973 TOPPS FRANCO HARRIS
45 115 1973 TOPPS JACK HAM
46 341 1973 TOPPS JIM LANGER
47 383 1974 TOPPS JOHN HANNAH
48 12 1975 TOPPS MEL BLOUNT
49 367 1975 TOPPS DAN FOUTS
50 148 1976 TOPPS WALTER PAYTON
51 158 1976 TOPPS RANDY WHITE
52 220 1976 TOPPS JACK LAMBERT
53 177 1977 TOPPS STEVE LARGENT
54 315 1978 TOPPS TONY DORSETT
55 390 1979 TOPPS EARL CAMPBELL
56 216 1981 TOPPS JOE MONTANA
57 51 1982 TOPPS ANTHONY MUNOZ
58 434 1982 TOPPS LAWRENCE TAYLOR
59 486 1982 TOPPS RONNIE LOTT
60 38 1983 TOPPS MIKE SINGLETARY
61 294 1983 TOPPS MARCUS ALLEN
62 63 1984 TOPPS JOHN ELWAY
63 123 1984 TOPPS DAN MARINO
64 280 1984 TOPPS ERIC DICKERSON
65 286 1984 TOPPS JACKIE SLATER
66 380 1984 TOPPS DARRELL GREEN
67 36 1984 USFL JIM KELLY
68 52 1984 USFL STEVE YOUNG
69 58 1984 TOPPS USFL REGGIE WHITE
70 251 1985 TOPPS WARREN MOON
71 389 1986 TOPPS BRUCE SMITH
72 78 1989 SCORE ROD WOODSON
73 109 1989 SCORE BRUCE MATTHEWS
74 257 1989 SCORE BARRY SANDERS
75 270 1989 SCORE TROY AIKMAN
Thank you for the list, Jason. It is fun to read.
That is a tough question. Ricky had one amazing year with the Dolphins and also two good years. If he goes for well over a grand like 1350 this year and 12 TDs I say he makes the Dolphins team. If he goes for just 1000 he will need to do that again next year to make it in. IMO. The only way he makes the Pro Football HOF is back to 2000 yard seasons. I don't think he has a shot at the HOF.
The only way he makes the Pro Football HOF is back to 2000 yard seasons. I don't think he has a shot at the HOF. >>
Troy, Is that from a standpoint of statistical totals or to atone for his rasta hiatus ? Looking at recent runningbacks, Bettis, Faulk, Martin... (and of course this is all hypothetical and bias seeing as I am a Dolphin homer) 3 good productive years of 1000 yd + totals and perhaps 20+ TDs and a good showing in the playoffs, he would be statistically comparable. On the flip side, it did take Orlando Cepeda several years to be "forgiven" for much worse but did has his lapse of good judgement overlooked.
<< <i>The only way he makes the Pro Football HOF is back to 2000 yard seasons. I don't think he has a shot at the HOF. >>
Troy, Is that from a standpoint of statistical totals or to atone for his rasta hiatus ? Looking at recent runningbacks, Bettis, Faulk, Martin... (and of course this is all hypothetical and bias seeing as I am a Dolphin homer) 3 good productive years of 1000 yd + totals and perhaps 20+ TDs and a good showing in the playoffs, he would be statistically comparable. On the flip side, it did take Orlando Cepeda several years to be "forgiven" for much worse but did has his lapse of good judgement overlooked. >>
More of a combo of both. He messed up pretty bad and yes, he has turned it around but that will sit sour in many voters minds. If he goes nuts for two-three years he has a shot to blind some voters on stats alone.
Ricky Watters is not in and does not get a sniff for votes. Top 20 all time rusher and when he retired he was 15th. I think both of these Ricky's are hosed for the HOF.
As far as All-Time Dolphins, for me personally, unless the guy was an MVP caliber player for multiple years on that franchise, the starting point is 6 season. He's played 6 seasons with the Dolphins, so you'll need to look at how important he has been, and also how good was he vs. the rest of the leagues RBs. For me, thus far in his Dolphin career, he hasn't been their #1 dominant type player, nor has he played on the same level as the other elite RB's in the league. You can't really compare him to Csonka, as they played in VERY different eras. Csonka was a difference maker who helped them win Championships and he did it for 8 years with the Dolphins.
Also, wanted to pass this along in reference to the 2000 All-Decade Team:
----Hi Jason,
We will not be loading basic/master sets for any of the NFL Teams of the Decades.
If you wish to list your special collection you can do so in the Collectors Showcase.
Thank you,
Gayle Kean-------
So, what we have, is all we will have as far as the 2000 Set goes. It doesn't match the other decade sets AT ALL, and PSA says they won;t do a basic/master (which is what I advocated). My only assumption is that eventually, ALL of the Decade sets will be comprised on the complete 53 man (or thereabouts) rosters. Expect it. I will not be deleting my 2000 Decade set, but will only be collecting the FIRST TEAM players on it. Will do the same with the other All-Decade sets if/when they get changed to reflect the entire decade rosters rather than the actual First team guys...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Do the collectors have any say in the set comp for the 2000 decade set, or is this a unilateral decision by PSA? I.E., is this something that they would allow the set collectors to vote on if the change to first-team-only were proposed as a set comp change?
Jasen
<< <i>Jason,
Do the collectors have any say in the set comp for the 2000 decade set, or is this a unilateral decision by PSA? I.E., is this something that they would allow the set collectors to vote on if the change to first-team-only were proposed as a set comp change?
Jasen >>
Not sure brotha, but maybe an option at this point since PSA won't upload the 2000 Decade set that makes sense.
More info: The set was REQUESTED as a 53 man set by someone on the Registry. Because I asked the same thing as you, how did they (PSA) come to the conclusion that the 2000 team should be an entire 53 man roster rather than FIRST TEAM as all of the decade sets are set up. And that's what I was told.
I'm not going to pint any fingers, but I can tell you the 53 card set requester posts here. And AGAIN we go back to the debate we'd been having here in this thread. One guy goes out on his own and makes a request based on his own singular opinion and for his own advantage of getting free grades or registry certificates or whatever. Doesn't factor in anyone else's opinion, doesn't do what makes sense, in keeping in line with all of the other decade sets, or what would be the best way to make the set popular in the collecting community. IMO, it is/was a selfish decision, and now we are left with not being able to collect a first team set (sans collectors showcase), that I GUARANTEE would have more than 13 collectors and more than 1 guy at 90+% at this point... I mean how many collectors are REALLY going to try and complete this entire 53 card set, and how many would have gone after the 24 card FIRST TEAM. Some of the cards on the current set are so valueless, you'll lose money on grading fees alone. It's not conducive to a SUCCESSFUL MASS appeal set, and it's really sad that the only reason it is there is because "he requested it first".
It's just another in a LONG list of things that are ruining this once great registry. I've debated a sell off today of all non-HOF cards, but I'm going to sleep on it and try to talk myself out of it. At this point, I feel like we, as a group of smart informed collectors, are being buried by the all-inclusive collectors. Which eventually will cause all of our cards to be valued less and less as the set saturation continues. If I do decide to sell off all non-HOFers, I will post here for first dibs.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Maybe if more of us complain it will work. Not sure though. But considering it is completely out of line with the rest of the all decade team sets I cant understand why PSA would allow it to go forward. But then again they havent held the all time team sets to same bar as each other either. I guess this is the big can of worms when we have these key card sets. Though one would think that the precedent would have been set with all of the all decade teams that have been requested to date. I for one would not complete neither the Rookie card set that is up nor would I attmept the auto'd parallel set. I guess we will all just have to do our own showcases, that nearly no one looks at.
Jay
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>Jason,
Maybe if more of us complain it will work. Not sure though. But considering it is completely out of line with the rest of the all decade team sets I cant understand why PSA would allow it to go forward. But then again they havent held the all time team sets to same bar as each other either. I guess this is the big can of worms when we have these key card sets. Though one would think that the precedent would have been set with all of the all decade teams that have been requested to date. I for one would not complete neither the Rookie card set that is up nor would I attmept the auto'd parallel set. I guess we will all just have to do our own showcases, that nearly no one looks at.
Jay >>
Maybe if we can get 20 collectors to upload their FIRST TEAM All-Decade set to the Showcase PSA will get the hint that it should be a competitive set on the Registry. Send the 53 card set to the Showcase and see how many actually chase set completion. I think I used the number before of 3. That is the number of collectors that SHOULD either complete or be attempting to complete a set to make it worth of even being on the Registry. If only 1 or 2 collectors want to complete a set, then the showcase is the place. But a mass appeal set SHOULD belong on the regular Registry. The competition helps drive values and in the long run, that helps all of us. But hey, I'm just trying to use common sense. I probably need to either leave the key card sets or attempt to turn off any logical thinking when viewing them. Gives me a headache even going in those sets anymore. Just a jumbled mess of near identical sets and half of them have cards/players that don't even belong. It's maddening and it shouldn't have to be that way.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I agree with you, the list is a who's who of the game's legends. It brings back my post about the Aussie Footy Hall of Fame and its separate "Legend" status category. There's no shortgage of argument over here about who should be granted legend status but one thing is for sure it's a select group. The AFL HOF has 227 members, with 157 players, 12 Umpires, 14 Coaches, 14 Administrators, 8 Media and the biggie, 22 Legends. They cap the Legends at 10% of the total figure. The website is crap and the selection process is flawed in its own way but compared to the North American HOF's it's about as good as it gets.
Hockey has the same problem as football (Gillies, Federko???) but since only 4 people actually watch hockey (they use multiple TV sets) no one really cares. Except me.
I like the idea of the 1st ballot list. I've printed it out and will start my own little quest.
<< <i>I'm not going to pint any fingers, but I can tell you the 53 card set requester posts here. And AGAIN we go back to the debate we'd been having here in this thread. One guy goes out on his own and makes a request based on his own singular opinion and for his own advantage of getting free grades or registry certificates or whatever. Doesn't factor in anyone else's opinion, doesn't do what makes sense, in keeping in line with all of the other decade sets, or what would be the best way to make the set popular in the collecting community. IMO, it is/was a selfish decision >>
Better point that finger somewhere else, because I didn't request the set.
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm not going to pint any fingers, but I can tell you the 53 card set requester posts here. And AGAIN we go back to the debate we'd been having here in this thread. One guy goes out on his own and makes a request based on his own singular opinion and for his own advantage of getting free grades or registry certificates or whatever. Doesn't factor in anyone else's opinion, doesn't do what makes sense, in keeping in line with all of the other decade sets, or what would be the best way to make the set popular in the collecting community. IMO, it is/was a selfish decision >>
Better point that finger somewhere else, because I didn't request the set. >>
Wait...I thought I didn't point any fingers? lol... Did I mention you at all? I don't mind you clearing your name since you are #3 on the set, and the only guy over 90%. BUT, lets not infer that I aimed anything in your direction, as I clearly did not and would not do that.
Like I said, I know who submitted it, and the guy posts on the boards, and has posted in this thread. Nough said. It was a selfish decision, and always is when sets/ player additions are requested that are to the benefit of the one collector requesting it, but not to anyone else. PERIOD.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
That is a truly awesome list, man. I think a great topic for discussion would be "who is the most glaring omission from this first-ballot HOF list?" My vote is going to "Automatic" Otto Graham. Other opinions???
Jasen
<< <i>Keith,
That is a truly awesome list, man. I think a great topic for discussion would be "who is the most glaring omission from this first-ballot HOF list?" My vote is going to "Automatic" Otto Graham. Other opinions???
Jasen >>
I agree on Graham but would also add Motley from those '50's Browns teams.
While Sayers was a first-ballot guy I'm not sure he's the best representation of what it means to get inducted on the first try. I also have the same issue w/ Butkus over Schmidt. IMO a first ballot player does not necesarily represent an "elite" player.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>Keith,
That is a truly awesome list, man. I think a great topic for discussion would be "who is the most glaring omission from this first-ballot HOF list?" My vote is going to "Automatic" Otto Graham. Other opinions???
Jasen >>
Oh I have a list...lol...Also have one containing guys who probably shouldn't have been first ballot. Keep in mind, timing has much to do with it. All depends on the competition for HOF spots that year. In a weak year a guy might sqeak in first ballot that otherwise might typically have to wait a couple of years. The one thing you can't debate on these first ballot guys is that ALL of them are deserving, lock, stock and barrel HOFers. No question. Anyway, here's my list:
SHOULD have been first ballot:
Otto Graham- Playing many years in the AAFC was a negative, plus he was only overlook the first 2 years the HOF was in existence. Maybe they felt they had to get in all the old timers (Grange, Thorpe, Nagurski) first?
Bulldog Turner- Dominant player but Mel Hein was the ONLY first ballot O.Lineman until Jim Parker in 1973. Hein was also a league MVP.
Norm Van Brocklin- Passed over 5 times. He was a head coach during those 5 years, and a rather unsuccessful one at that. Can't think of any other reason.
NightTrain Lane- Was considered a dirty player by many, could have hurt him. He got passed over 3 times, should have been first ballot.
Joe Namath- I'll probably get beat up over this one. But his impact on the game during his peak was maybe the tops of all-time in football. The Michael Jordan of pro football at the time, even if he wasn't the greatest ever with the ball in his hands. He got passed over twice, but how do you write the history of the game without Namath in it?
Mike Ditka- There was a TE bias for many years. Took Ditka 12 and Mackey 15, both should have been first ballot.
John Mackey- See above.
Mike Webster- Greatest Center of his era, top 3 all-time. Already had a bunch of 70's Steelers get in though, he got in 2nd ballot at least.
Derrick Thomas- I guess because he was killed they felt they could wait? No clue. Was there ever a more dominant pass rusher from the LB position?
Now for the guys the players above should REPLACE on the first ballot list. Guys I don;t think would be deserving of the "Legend" or first ballot status:
Ollie Matson- Good RB, HOF caliber, but I just don't see him in the same class as the other first ballot RBs. Was a weak class when he got selected, so that helped.
Willie Brown- Great player, definite HOFer, but first ballot? Not so sure about that. And he went in over Namath? No way.
Jan Stenerud- A kicker first ballot? Noooo, come on.
Jim Langer- Another great player, definitely HOF caliber. But how does he go in first ballot and Kuechenberg can't even get in? Larry Little even had to wait 8 years!
Jackie Slater- I know he played for like 100 years and all, but was he REALLY worthy of first ballot? There are a few players who I think should have went in ahead of him in 2001.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
I agree on Graham but would also add Motley from those '50's Browns teams.
While Sayers was a first-ballot guy I'm not sure he's the best representation of what it means to get inducted on the first try. I also have the same issue w/ Butkus over Schmidt. IMO a first ballot player does not necesarily represent an "elite" player. >>
Joe Schmidt got elected in 1973, Butkus in 1979, so it wasn't a case of going in over or being selected before Schmidt. Butkus however was elite. Sayers was also elite. But were borderline on their time of service as injuries shortened both careers. But they were both "exception" type players. They transended the game and have both been mentioned as THE greatest to ever play their positions by some. Was there ever a more feared LB than Butkus? Maybe Nitschke...A RB more feared than Sayers with the ball in his hands? Maybe Jimmy Brown, maybe Barry Sanders. But it's a short list.
I would likely be ok with Motley as a first ballot guy, but like Graham, they were caught in the first years of the HOF as they were trying to get established. If Motley was first ballot in 1968, the year he was elected, then he would have had a shot. But i don't have an issue with him needing to wait a few as they cleared the backlog.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I agree on Graham but would also add Motley from those '50's Browns teams.
While Sayers was a first-ballot guy I'm not sure he's the best representation of what it means to get inducted on the first try. I also have the same issue w/ Butkus over Schmidt. IMO a first ballot player does not necesarily represent an "elite" player. >>
Joe Schmidt got elected in 1973, Butkus in 1979, so it wasn't a case of going in over or being selected before Schmidt. Butkus however was elite. Sayers was also elite. But were borderline on their time of service as injuries shortened both careers. But they were both "exception" type players. They transended the game and have both been mentioned as THE greatest to ever play their positions by some. Was there ever a more feared LB than Butkus? Maybe Nitschke...A RB more feared than Sayers with the ball in his hands? Maybe Jimmy Brown, maybe Barry Sanders. But it's a short list.
I would likely be ok with Motley as a first ballot guy, but like Graham, they were caught in the first years of the HOF as they were trying to get established. If Motley was first ballot in 1968, the year he was elected, then he would have had a shot. But i don't have an issue with him needing to wait a few as they cleared the backlog.
Jason >>
I did not see Schmidt, Nitschke, or Butkus play but I have read that Butkus was overrated and that Schmidt was the better player. From what I have read Schmidt was a sideline to sideline LB who could also make plays defending the pass. I guess my point is that Butkus is known for his big hits rather than his all round play.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
I agree on Graham but would also add Motley from those '50's Browns teams.
While Sayers was a first-ballot guy I'm not sure he's the best representation of what it means to get inducted on the first try. I also have the same issue w/ Butkus over Schmidt. IMO a first ballot player does not necesarily represent an "elite" player. >>
Joe Schmidt got elected in 1973, Butkus in 1979, so it wasn't a case of going in over or being selected before Schmidt. Butkus however was elite. Sayers was also elite. But were borderline on their time of service as injuries shortened both careers. But they were both "exception" type players. They transended the game and have both been mentioned as THE greatest to ever play their positions by some. Was there ever a more feared LB than Butkus? Maybe Nitschke...A RB more feared than Sayers with the ball in his hands? Maybe Jimmy Brown, maybe Barry Sanders. But it's a short list.
I would likely be ok with Motley as a first ballot guy, but like Graham, they were caught in the first years of the HOF as they were trying to get established. If Motley was first ballot in 1968, the year he was elected, then he would have had a shot. But I don't have an issue with him needing to wait a few as they cleared the backlog.
Jason >>
I did not see Schmidt, Nitschke, or Butkus play but I have read that Butkus was overrated and that Schmidt was the better player. From what I have read Schmidt was a sideline to sideline LB who could also make plays defending the pass. I guess my point is that Butkus is known for his big hits rather than his all round play. >>
That's a good point, and in some ways I do agree with you. What you have to remember about the HOF, and all HOF's in general is that being GREAT at one thing usually trumps being really good at a bunch of things. I'm not sure where you read Butkus was overrated, and to what degree. He was NOT a coverage guy, and wasn't asked to be (kinda like DeMarcus Ware..lol). He was the thumper, the enforcer, and did just fine sideline-to-sideline. Find some of his highlight reels, he ran down plenty of ball carries before the injuries hit. He made Offenses change the way they did business. Did Joe Schmidt have that affect? Not that I know of, but yes Schmidt was good at everything, and was a great HOF caliber player. I think it's easy to look at Schmidt's pro Bowl totals and assume he must have been better. But you have to keep in mind that he also played for 13 years. Give Butkus a 13 year career with no injuries and he probably has 12 Pro Bowls. What Schmidt didn't have was the persona, character and star power as Butkus. And like it or not, agree with it or not, that star power is what distinguishes one great player vs. another. As I said, there are MANY that consider Butkus the greatest LB of all-time, I've never ever heard anyone say that about Joe Schmidt.
When you think of All-Time LBs, who comes to mind? Arguably my top 10 LBs of all-time:
1-Lawrence Taylor
2-Dick Butkus
3-Jack Lambert
4-Chuck Bednarik
5-Ray Lewis
6-Mike Singletary
7-Ray Nitschke
8-Joe Schmidt
9-Junior Seau
10-Jack Ham
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
DEFINITELY will not be getting out of the HOF sets. I still enjoy those immensely, and will do my best to continue to care take these sets as best I can. The yearly voting we do here for the Modern and Senior sets is great fun and something I want to keep doing.
That being said, here are my initial offerings of Key Card Set cards. Going to give those on this thread a couple days head start before I start posting to the BST and/or on ebay. Used VCP as a guide, some of my prices are a little higher and some a little lower than VCP average, mostly based on eye appeal and relative rarity of the card coming available to the public. These prices INCLUDE shipping, no hidden fees. Will accept Checks, Money Orders and PayPal. See anything you need or want, shoot me a PM or e-mail at jabeduco@yahoo.com. If you need scans, most can be found on my Registry sets. If you don't see it there, let me know and I can e-mail.
1957 TOPPS 23 DON CHANDLER PSA 8 $40
1965 PHILADELPHIA 156 JIM BAKKEN PSA 8 $15
1971 TOPPS 121 GARO YEPREMIAN PSA 8 $12
1976 TOPPS 223 BILLY JOHNSON PSA 8 $8
1980 TOPPS 170 OTTIS ANDERSON ALL-PRO PSA 10 $70
1983 TOPPS 384 KENNY EASLEY PSA 10 $150
1984 TOPPS 222 JIM COVERT PSA 10 $60
1985 TOPPS 80 HENRY ELLARD PSA 10 $100
1985 TOPPS 325 IRVING FRYAR PSA 10 $65
1986 TOPPS 275 REGGIE WHITE PSA 10 $650
1986 TOPPS 154 SEAN LANDETA PSA 9 $25
1990 SCORE SUPPLEMENTAL 65T JUNIOR SEAU PSA 10 $15
1990 SCORE SUPPLEMENTAL 68T CORTEZ KENNEDY PSA 10 $20
1991 STADIUM CLUB 60 RICKY WATTERS PSA 10 $6
1995 COLLECTOR'S CHOICE UPDATE U210 DARREN BENNETT PSA 10 $35
1995 SP 6 JOEY GALLOWAY FOIL PSA 10 $45
2000 SP AUTHENTIC 132 JAMAL LEWIS PSA 10 $100
2002 SP AUTHENTIC 157 BRIAN WESTBROOK PSA 10 $40
2005 TOPPS CHROME 197 CARNELL WILLIAMS PSA 10 $6
2006 TOPPS CHROME 252 DEVIN HESTER PSA 10 $20
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Well I know that it seems to be more the exception than the norm to write about the Football HOF Rookies cards on the Football HOF Rookies Message Board thread
It's interesting the #1 set appears to have just picked up one of the the two mint 1955 Topps All-American Ace Parker rookie cards. At last check, Parker is the oldest living Football HOFer at age 98.
Though I no longer collect this set, I recently scooped up the below card that happens to meet it's theme. However, I bought it for my All-Time Eagles Registry Set. Though I need this card in a PSA 8, it's addition moves me to #1 on the All-Time Eagles Set:
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
I agree on Graham but would also add Motley from those '50's Browns teams.
While Sayers was a first-ballot guy I'm not sure he's the best representation of what it means to get inducted on the first try. I also have the same issue w/ Butkus over Schmidt. IMO a first ballot player does not necesarily represent an "elite" player. >>
Joe Schmidt got elected in 1973, Butkus in 1979, so it wasn't a case of going in over or being selected before Schmidt. Butkus however was elite. Sayers was also elite. But were borderline on their time of service as injuries shortened both careers. But they were both "exception" type players. They transended the game and have both been mentioned as THE greatest to ever play their positions by some. Was there ever a more feared LB than Butkus? Maybe Nitschke...A RB more feared than Sayers with the ball in his hands? Maybe Jimmy Brown, maybe Barry Sanders. But it's a short list.
I would likely be ok with Motley as a first ballot guy, but like Graham, they were caught in the first years of the HOF as they were trying to get established. If Motley was first ballot in 1968, the year he was elected, then he would have had a shot. But I don't have an issue with him needing to wait a few as they cleared the backlog.
Jason >>
I did not see Schmidt, Nitschke, or Butkus play but I have read that Butkus was overrated and that Schmidt was the better player. From what I have read Schmidt was a sideline to sideline LB who could also make plays defending the pass. I guess my point is that Butkus is known for his big hits rather than his all round play. >>
That's a good point, and in some ways I do agree with you. What you have to remember about the HOF, and all HOF's in general is that being GREAT at one thing usually trumps being really good at a bunch of things. I'm not sure where you read Butkus was overrated, and to what degree. He was NOT a coverage guy, and wasn't asked to be (kinda like DeMarcus Ware..lol). He was the thumper, the enforcer, and did just fine sideline-to-sideline. Find some of his highlight reels, he ran down plenty of ball carries before the injuries hit. He made Offenses change the way they did business. Did Joe Schmidt have that affect? Not that I know of, but yes Schmidt was good at everything, and was a great HOF caliber player. I think it's easy to look at Schmidt's pro Bowl totals and assume he must have been better. But you have to keep in mind that he also played for 13 years. Give Butkus a 13 year career with no injuries and he probably has 12 Pro Bowls. What Schmidt didn't have was the persona, character and star power as Butkus. And like it or not, agree with it or not, that star power is what distinguishes one great player vs. another. As I said, there are MANY that consider Butkus the greatest LB of all-time, I've never ever heard anyone say that about Joe Schmidt.
When you think of All-Time LBs, who comes to mind? Arguably my top 10 LBs of all-time:
1-Lawrence Taylor
2-Dick Butkus
3-Jack Lambert
4-Chuck Bednarik
5-Ray Lewis
6-Mike Singletary
7-Ray Nitschke
8-Joe Schmidt
9-Junior Seau
10-Jack Ham >>
Its a bit difficult to develop an argument for Schmidt without seeing him play but looking over the first 9 years of his career he did make All Pro 7 times to Butkus's 5. I don't doubt what Butkus's could have been if healthy or on a better team but Schmidt actually did accomplish those things. He was the leader of championship defense and overall made the Pro Bowl and All Pro more than Butkus. Butkus did strike fear in the opposition but Schmidt was one of the first highly athletic LB's known for more than hitting.
I 100% agree on the star power, good or bad it has alot to do w/ reputation.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
Its a bit difficult to develop an argument for Schmidt without seeing him play but looking over the first 9 years of his career he did make All Pro 7 times to Butkus's 5. I don't doubt what Butkus's could have been if healthy or on a better team but Schmidt actually did accomplish those things. He was the leader of championship defense and overall made the Pro Bowl and All Pro more than Butkus. Butkus did strike fear in the opposition but Schmidt was one of the first highly athletic LB's known for more than hitting.
I 100% agree on the star power, good or bad it has alot to do w/ reputation. >>
You can find highlight video and game footage. It's out there. Moreso on Butkus than Schmidt. If i can figure out how to rip one of my recorded DVDs, I'll try and figure out a way to post it to the net and provide a link for you. An important thing to remember is to not get too wrapped up in Pro Bowls or All-Pro's. Do they play a part? Certainly. 1st Team All-Pro selections carry some weight, as they are selected by the writers who covered the NFL during that particular season. The Pro Bowl however, being a popularity poll above all else, really doesn't carry much weight if we are discussing a "who was better" scenario.
I honestly don't remember ever reading, seeing or hearing anything that had Schmidt being considered a better LB than Butkus. By anyone in the football world. If you have, I'd love to read it and get an opinion from that prospective. Other than using the method of adding up totals (All-Pros and Pro Bowls) as your waypoint, I cant imagine any other way someone would view Schmidt as the better player. By using that as your only guide, really all it does is allow you to compare Schmidt to other LBs who played during the same years 1953-1965. When you try to compare players who played in different eras, you have to use a combination of accolades, stats, reputations, and eye test.
For some perspective, let's examine the All-Pro selections at LB during Schmidt's playing years.
8 times in his 13 years he was selected as 1st team. Bill George also played LB during this same period (1952-1966), so their careers overlapped. Bill George is also an 8 time 1st team All-Pro selection. The next closest LBs who played during Schmidt's years are Chuck Bednarik (1949-1962) with 3 selections (at LB) although he didn't play much LB after 1957, mostly Center. So his 3 All-Pro's at LB were between 1953-1957. Also with 3 1st team All-Pros during Schmidt's career: Bill Forester and Joe Fortunato. So clearly, George and Schmidt were the best MLB's of their era. But there a couple of interesting caveats to this....
1-The position of MLB didn't exist until 1956, at least not as we know it today. Invented by Tom Landry, who was the Giants D coordinator at the time, and his guinea pig was one Mr. Sam Huff. Prior to that, the guy in the middle was called a Middle Guard, and he was essentially the 5th D Lineman in a 5-2 set up. So Schmidt and George were among the first to be used as MLBs along with Sam Huff. Trailblazers for sure, but they also had the advantage that not many other teams had that type of player. In a 4-3, the MLB is the guy the defense is typically built around. By the time Butkus came into the league, MLB was an established position. Most, if not all, teams were using it and had acquired players who understood and were trained to play in the spot. Unlike the 50's, when it was easier to be a the "top" LB, because the competition wasn't that great.
2-It wasn't until 1962 that the AP began to distinguish MLB/OLB in the voting. Prior to that, All LBs, MLB and OLB were simply voted as LB. This was another advantage as George AND Schmidt were able to claim 1st Team All-Pro spots all as MLBs in 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1961. Beginning in 1962, ONLY ONE MLB was chosen along with two OLBs. This is an advantage guys like Dick Butkus did not enjoy. Butkus had to split the ONE AND ONLY 1st team MLB position with Nitschke, Nobis and Lanier. Under the system Schmidt enjoyed, Butkus most likely would have had 8 Pro Bowls and 8 1st Team All-Pro's in hsi first 8 seasons. Instead, you had guys like Wayne Walker, LeeRoy Caffey, Mike Curtis and Chuck Howley getting 1st Team All-Pros at OLB, while either Butkus or Nitschke got bumped as a 2nd team All-Pro since only ONE of them could be selected.
Anyway, just wanted to provide some framework to show my point that simply looking at a guys totals or a guys stats does NOT tell the whole story. You have to dig a little deeper if you want to use the All-Pros and the Pro Bowls and what not to explain why one player was better than another.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Its a bit difficult to develop an argument for Schmidt without seeing him play but looking over the first 9 years of his career he did make All Pro 7 times to Butkus's 5. I don't doubt what Butkus's could have been if healthy or on a better team but Schmidt actually did accomplish those things. He was the leader of championship defense and overall made the Pro Bowl and All Pro more than Butkus. Butkus did strike fear in the opposition but Schmidt was one of the first highly athletic LB's known for more than hitting.
I 100% agree on the star power, good or bad it has alot to do w/ reputation. >>
You can find highlight video and game footage. It's out there. Moreso on Butkus than Schmidt. If i can figure out how to rip one of my recorded DVDs, I'll try and figure out a way to post it to the net and provide a link for you. An important thing to remember is to not get too wrapped up in Pro Bowls or All-Pro's. Do they play a part? Certainly. 1st Team All-Pro selections carry some weight, as they are selected by the writers who covered the NFL during that particular season. The Pro Bowl however, being a popularity poll above all else, really doesn't carry much weight if we are discussing a "who was better" scenario.
I honestly don't remember ever reading, seeing or hearing anything that had Schmidt being considered a better LB than Butkus. By anyone in the football world. If you have, I'd love to read it and get an opinion from that prospective. Other than using the method of adding up totals (All-Pros and Pro Bowls) as your waypoint, I cant imagine any other way someone would view Schmidt as the better player. By using that as your only guide, really all it does is allow you to compare Schmidt to other LBs who played during the same years 1953-1965. When you try to compare players who played in different eras, you have to use a combination of accolades, stats, reputations, and eye test.
For some perspective, let's examine the All-Pro selections at LB during Schmidt's playing years.
8 times in his 13 years he was selected as 1st team. Bill George also played LB during this same period (1952-1966), so their careers overlapped. Bill George is also an 8 time 1st team All-Pro selection. The next closest LBs who played during Schmidt's years are Chuck Bednarik (1949-1962) with 3 selections (at LB) although he didn't play much LB after 1957, mostly Center. So his 3 All-Pro's at LB were between 1953-1957. Also with 3 1st team All-Pros during Schmidt's career: Bill Forester and Joe Fortunato. So clearly, George and Schmidt were the best MLB's of their era. But there a couple of interesting caveats to this....
1-The position of MLB didn't exist until 1956, at least not as we know it today. Invented by Tom Landry, who was the Giants D coordinator at the time, and his guinea pig was one Mr. Sam Huff. Prior to that, the guy in the middle was called a Middle Guard, and he was essentially the 5th D Lineman in a 5-2 set up. So Schmidt and George were among the first to be used as MLBs along with Sam Huff. Trailblazers for sure, but they also had the advantage that not many other teams had that type of player. In a 4-3, the MLB is the guy the defense is typically built around. By the time Butkus came into the league, MLB was an established position. Most, if not all, teams were using it and had acquired players who understood and were trained to play in the spot. Unlike the 50's, when it was easier to be a the "top" LB, because the competition wasn't that great.
2-It wasn't until 1962 that the AP began to distinguish MLB/OLB in the voting. Prior to that, All LBs, MLB and OLB were simply voted as LB. This was another advantage as George AND Schmidt were able to claim 1st Team All-Pro spots all as MLBs in 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1961. Beginning in 1962, ONLY ONE MLB was chosen along with two OLBs. This is an advantage guys like Dick Butkus did not enjoy. Butkus had to split the ONE AND ONLY 1st team MLB position with Nitschke, Nobis and Lanier. Under the system Schmidt enjoyed, Butkus most likely would have had 8 Pro Bowls and 8 1st Team All-Pro's in hsi first 8 seasons. Instead, you had guys like Wayne Walker, LeeRoy Caffey, Mike Curtis and Chuck Howley getting 1st Team All-Pros at OLB, while either Butkus or Nitschke got bumped as a 2nd team All-Pro since only ONE of them could be selected.
Anyway, just wanted to provide some framework to show my point that simply looking at a guys totals or a guys stats does NOT tell the whole story. You have to dig a little deeper if you want to use the All-Pros and the Pro Bowls and what not to explain why one player was better than another.
Jason >>
That fact that Schmidt was one of the pioneers of the position should be a positive b/c he demonstrated an excellent ability to read defenses and make plays (per the HOF player page).
Schmidt might have benefited from the general LB All Pro or he still might have been awarded the distinction. I think it is something that can be debated either way. The same can be said for Butkus and the other MLB if the had the option of the general LB ALL Pro label. Howley and Curtis were pretty darn good LB's and might have found their way into the mix any ways.
Thanks for posting the info on the All Pro's b/c it does provide a reference point.
I wish I could remember where I saw the Schmidt argument.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>That fact that Schmidt was one of the pioneers of the position should be a positive b/c he demonstrated an excellent ability to read defenses and make plays (per the HOF player page).
Schmidt might have benefited from the general LB All Pro or he still might have been awarded the distinction. I think it is something that can be debated either way. The same can be said for Butkus and the other MLB if the had the option of the general LB ALL Pro label. Howley and Curtis were pretty darn good LB's and might have found their way into the mix any ways.
Thanks for posting the info on the All Pro's b/c it does provide a reference point.
I wish I could remember where I saw the Schmidt argument. >>
What being a pioneer does is put him in the discussion of the top 10 LBs of all time. Because of what he did and WHEN he did it. But we are comparing players here, and specifcally the skill set each player brought to the field.
As far as the LB position changing to being identifed as MLB, there is no debate, that it reduced the number of possible 1st Team All-Pro MLBs from 3 (which happened in 1958= Schmidt, George, Huff) to 1. I wish I had the vote count that far back, but unfortunately I do not. But I can tell you that the ONLY year prior to his injury in 1973 that he was not either 1st team or 2nd team (meaning top 2 MLB in football that season) was 1967. That year, Nobis was 1st Team and Nitschke 2nd. And Nobis that year (unofficially) had over 200 solo tackles in 14 games (BEAST).
Really, the only knock on Butkus was that he never won a Championship. But if you look at those Bears teams from his era, other than Sayers, man they were GARBAGE talent wise. They had Atkins and Ditka for a couple of those years but really only so much an MLB can do to actually WIN games for his team...lol
I'd love to read that article as well as see who exactly wrote it. Some unknown blogger who was simply counting up Pro Bowls and All-Pros, or was it a respected football historian who witnessed the play of both players? I doubt it would CHANGE my opinion, but at least might give me a reason to rank Schmidt even higher on my list of All-Time LBs. Here are a couple of reference points for you in the debate from third party opinions:
Jason
ESPN Voting
Peter King
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Upcoming HOFers, Class of 2011.
First time on the ballot:
Deion Sanders
Marshall Faulk
William Roaf
Curtis Martin
Jerome Bettis
Bill Cowher
Dick Vermeil
Jimmy Smith
Doug Flutie
Finalists from 2010:
Shannon Sharpe
Richard Dent
Andre Reed
Dermontti Dawson
Cortez Kennedy
Cris Carter
Tim Brown
Charles Haley
Roger Craig
Don Coryell
Due to the strength of the first ballot nominees this year, I believe we will see a MINIMUM of 3 first ballot selections. Leaving just 2 slots from all the other modern candidates.
How I see them...
Tier 1-100% Guarantee LOCKS:
Deion Sanders
Marshall Faulk
Tier 2-50% chance or better (All should make the finals):
William Roaf
Curtis Martin
Jerome Bettis
Shannon Sharpe
Richard Dent
Andre Reed
Dermontti Dawson
Cortez Kennedy
Tier 3-25-49% chance (all should make the semi-finals and/or finals):
Bill Cowher
Cris Carter
Tim Brown
Charles Haley
Ray Guy
Tier 4- Less than 25% Longshots:
Aeneas Williams
Roger Craig
Lester Hayes
Don Coryell
Terrell Davis
Kevin Greene
Paul Tagliabue
Chris Doleman
Gary Anderson
Steve Tasker
I believe the other 3 modern selections will all come from the tier 2 group. None of the Tier 4 longshots have the juice to crack this super strong class. Although it is Lester Hayes last shot, but not a good year for it, especially with Ray Guy having his last chance as well. The Tier 3 guys are the sleepers, who could make a surprise run via a big push.
Ray Guy--Last shot..I think they put him in the top 15, and will discuss him one last time "in the room". Many voters want him in, but still quite a few that do not. 50/50 on Guy this year. A good (new)argument could very well do the trick.
Charles Haley--Haley is still behind Richard Dent in the pass rushers group. But I wouldn't rule out a push for him though that could surprise and leapfrog Dent. Seems to be the norm lately.
Cris Carter--Carter and Brown have now fallen behind Andre Reed in the WR group. Either player COULD make the top 15, but doesn't look like either will get in before Reed. And they won't take 2 WR's this class. Not impossible, but unlikely.
Tim Brown--See above
Bill Cowher--Will depend on how much the voters think he will eventually coach again. It is seeming more likely each year, so I'm guessing they hold off on Cowher based on that.
That leaves the Tier 2 guys, question is, which 3 get the call?
Faulk vs. Martin and Bettis.....Marshall is the best of the group and should cruise to a first ballot induction. The question is, how bad will it hurt Bettis and Martin? IMO, the difference is large enough that neither Bettis or Martin will measure up close enough to Faulk. I think both Bettis AND Martin end up waiting until next year.
Roaf vs. Dawson.....One of these guys will snag the 3rd Spot. My money is on Roaf, but with Bettis and Cowher (Steelers getting denied) Dawson could be the consolation prize.
Dent vs. Kennedy....One of these should grab the 4th spot. Both have been so very close recently. Deion and one of these two DLs would make for a very fair defensive representation. As stated above, don't rule out Haley leapfrogging both of these guys. My money is on Dent. I lost that bet last year, but sticking with him. He would have been the 6th modern HOFer if they allowed that many.
Sharpe vs. Reed....Last spot will likely be filled by one of these 2 pass catchers. These guys are a dead heat, but personally I'd prefer Sharpe first so that's my pick. But EASILY I could see Reed getting in to clear up the WR backlog. This is the spot Ray Guy, Cris Carter or Tim Brown could also possibly take.
In summary...My June 2010 predictions for the Class of 2011:
Deion Sanders
Marshall Faulk
Willie Roaf
Richard Dent
Shannon Sharpe
Anyone else seeing or hearing anything differently? Not much chatter yet I know. That will start around August when they start the process of selecting the Senior candidates.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
I agree on Graham but would also add Motley from those '50's Browns teams.
While Sayers was a first-ballot guy I'm not sure he's the best representation of what it means to get inducted on the first try. I also have the same issue w/ Butkus over Schmidt. IMO a first ballot player does not necesarily represent an "elite" player. >>
Joe Schmidt got elected in 1973, Butkus in 1979, so it wasn't a case of going in over or being selected before Schmidt. Butkus however was elite. Sayers was also elite. But were borderline on their time of service as injuries shortened both careers. But they were both "exception" type players. They transended the game and have both been mentioned as THE greatest to ever play their positions by some. Was there ever a more feared LB than Butkus? Maybe Nitschke...A RB more feared than Sayers with the ball in his hands? Maybe Jimmy Brown, maybe Barry Sanders. But it's a short list.
I would likely be ok with Motley as a first ballot guy, but like Graham, they were caught in the first years of the HOF as they were trying to get established. If Motley was first ballot in 1968, the year he was elected, then he would have had a shot. But I don't have an issue with him needing to wait a few as they cleared the backlog.
Jason >>
I did not see Schmidt, Nitschke, or Butkus play but I have read that Butkus was overrated and that Schmidt was the better player. From what I have read Schmidt was a sideline to sideline LB who could also make plays defending the pass. I guess my point is that Butkus is known for his big hits rather than his all round play. >>
That's a good point, and in some ways I do agree with you. What you have to remember about the HOF, and all HOF's in general is that being GREAT at one thing usually trumps being really good at a bunch of things. I'm not sure where you read Butkus was overrated, and to what degree. He was NOT a coverage guy, and wasn't asked to be (kinda like DeMarcus Ware..lol). He was the thumper, the enforcer, and did just fine sideline-to-sideline. Find some of his highlight reels, he ran down plenty of ball carries before the injuries hit. He made Offenses change the way they did business. Did Joe Schmidt have that affect? Not that I know of, but yes Schmidt was good at everything, and was a great HOF caliber player. I think it's easy to look at Schmidt's pro Bowl totals and assume he must have been better. But you have to keep in mind that he also played for 13 years. Give Butkus a 13 year career with no injuries and he probably has 12 Pro Bowls. What Schmidt didn't have was the persona, character and star power as Butkus. And like it or not, agree with it or not, that star power is what distinguishes one great player vs. another. As I said, there are MANY that consider Butkus the greatest LB of all-time, I've never ever heard anyone say that about Joe Schmidt.
When you think of All-Time LBs, who comes to mind? Arguably my top 10 LBs of all-time:
1-Lawrence Taylor
2-Dick Butkus
3-Jack Lambert
4-Chuck Bednarik
5-Ray Lewis
6-Mike Singletary
7-Ray Nitschke
8-Joe Schmidt
9-Junior Seau
10-Jack Ham >>
Hello everyone,
As you know, I don't post on this thread very often, but this topic brought to mind a story that I want to share. As you may or may not know, I live in Canton, Ohio , and every month, a local promoter has a card show / autograph session. For a little over three years, I have been the person that takes the autograph guest ( nearly always football, and usually a Hall of Famer ) out to eat after the show, and then take them to the airport. I have even managed to get four of them over to my house to see my extensive autograph collection.
I want to prefice this by saying, # 1, I was VERY surprised at what he said to me and # 2, I do NOT want to say his name, but , trust me , this IS a true story. A couple of years ago, I got to take out an outstanding offensive lineman to eat and for almost 2 hours got to talk football and life with him. Let's just say, if you add up his , # 1 Pro Bowl selections, # 2, his 1st team ALL-PRO selections , # 3, his 2nd team ALL PRO selections, and 4th, his Super Bowl Championship teams, you WILL be double digits. Anyway, I was asking him about the best linebackers he ever played against, and he told me, WITHOUT A DOUBT, the BEST linebacker he ever played against was Mike Curtis. I was pretty surprised, and asked him about Lambert. He basically said was , Lambert was a product of his envirnment, of having 2 monsters right in front of him ( Greene & Holmes ) a Hall of Famer on one side ( Ham ) and a guy who should be in the Hall ( Russell ) on the other side of him. He said that Lambert was good against the run, ( reminding me of who he had right in front of him ) but, when it came to pass coverage, he was VERY unimpressed with his speed, and coverage skills of going side to side, or dropping back. Mike Curtis he said, had FAR inferior talent around him, and was far superior, not only in pass coverage, but against the run as well, and he said , Curtis was much more effective at shedding his blockers.
Just thought I'd pass that along.
Rocke
Building on your story, thought I'd post some of the Sports Illustrated article from 1984 that named Lambert the "Greatest MLB of All-Time". It was written by Dr. Z, who before his stroke, was widely considered one of the premier football historians of the century. Dr. Z never played, but he hung his hat on the fact that he watch EVER PLAY over EVERY GAME. He would review game film and grade players all off-season. His opinions when it comes to HOF candidacy are 2nd to no one. Anyway, like your story, it's a great read.
By Paul Zimmerman
As published in Sports Illustrated
July 30, 1984
At one time middle linebackers roamed the league like Goliaths. Nitschke, Butkus, Schmidt -- names as tough as the people who carried them. Wille Lanier, with the pad he wore on the front of his helmet. Mike Curtis, the Animal. Bob Griese talks about staring across the line at Butkus and feeling his legs turn to jelly. Gene Upshaw, the Raiders' ex-guard, remembers the terror he felt when he looked into Lanier's eyes.
But then a few years ago, something sad happed to these great middle linebackers. The 3-4 defense robbed them of their identity. They divided, like an amoeba. Instead of one, there were two of them, inside strong and inside weak, or, in the Steelers' case, left and right. The great gunfighters of the past had gone corporate. It was if Wyatt Earp had taken on a job with Pinkerton's, or Bat Masterson had become director of security for the National Bank. It happened to Harry Carson with the Giants, then to Jack Reynolds when he went from the Rams to the 49ers. And then the last of them, the last of the great old middle linebackers, Jack Lambert, got his two years ago.
"Oh yes, Mr. Lambert, I've heard of you. And what position do you play, Mr. Lambert?" And instead of snarling out "middle linebacker" through chipped and broken teeth, Lambert would answer "inside linebacker left." Sounds like a traffic signal.
Oh, there are still middle linebackers -- seven of them. They belong to the seven NFL teams that continue to use the 4-3 as their basic defense, but most of them are 60% players. They get the hook on passing downs, when the defense goes into its nickel. There's the Bears' Mike Singletary, the best of the bunch, but the rest of the names won't quicken the pulse; Ken Fantetti, David Ahrens, Neal Olkewicz, Bob Crable, Bob Breunig, Fulton Kuykendall -- all good steady workers, but there's no magic there. So can you blame Lambert for trying to recapture a little of the old imagery, some of the old glamor -- and terror -- that went with the position?
Actually, if you look at Lambert's career with the Steelers you find a remarkable collection of big plays in big situations, but no trail of bloodied and broken bodies; you find very little to justify all the adjectives and mayhem that give writers so many easy off-day features. Lambert hits hard, of course. Always has, ever since his high school days.
Four incidents, fairly evenly spaced, helped nurture and feed the Lambert image. First there was the Cliff Harris affair in the Super Bowl after the '75 season, Lambert's second year. In the third quarter the Steelers' Roy Gerela missed a 33-yard field goal. Harris, the Cowboys' free safety, tapped Gerela on the helmet and said, "Way to go." Lambert flung him to the ground. No flag was thrown, but referee Norm Schacter was on the verge of kicking Lambert out of the game. Lambert talked him out of it.
"Jack Lambert," Pittsburgh coach Chuck Noll said afterword, "is a defender of what is right."
Then there were the three Brian Sipe incidents, during the '78, '81, and '83 seasons, three set pieces from the same script. Each time Lambert hit the Cleveland quarterback as he was releasing the ball. Too late, decided the referee, who was Ben Dreith the last two times. Each time Lambert got mobbed by the Browns' bench, each time he was flagged, and twice he was ejected from the game and fined by the league.
After the '78 hit he spent 20 minutes in Pete Rozelle's office. Lambert explained he had crossed both arms in front of him to soften the blow. The hit was still late, Rozelle said. [Ed. Note: This was the hit that spawned Lambert's famous "Quarterbacks should wear dresses" quote during a Monday Night interview with Howard Cosell the following week.]
"I asked him, 'How about the guys who came off the bench and mobbed me?'" Lambert says. "'Were they fined?' He said, 'No, but they got very strong warnings.'"
In the dressing room after the '81 game, the writers asked Lambert about the play.
"Dreith said I hit Sipe too hard," Lambert said.
"Did you?"
"I hit him as hard as I could."
Noll defended Lambert in '83. He said what the Browns did to Lambert on the sidelines was "criminal... they kicked him where no young man should be kicked."
In the locker room the writers asked Lambert abut it again. Same play, same ref. It was getting a bit old. He capsuled the situation in his terse and hard-bitten style: "Brian has a chance to go out of bounds and he decides not to. He knows I'm going to hit him. And I do. History."
Andy Russell, a successful businessman in Pittsburgh these days, shakes his head when asked about the Lambert image.
"Tough, raw-boned, intense," Russell says, "that's the way he'll be remembered, but I've seen a lot of guys like that come into the league. No, Jack's a whole lot more. The range he has... they put him into coverage 30 yardsdownfield. They gave him assignments that old Bears or Packers never would've dreamed of. He brought a whole new concept to the position, and that's why, for me anyway, he's the greatest there has ever been. His first step is never wrong, his techniques have always been perfect. His greatness has nothing to do with his popular image."
The image. Close your eyes and you can see Lambert ranging from sideline to sideline in the old 4-3 days, a big wingless bird, half an inch over 6'4", barely 220 pounds, alwayssquared up to the line, always around the ball. He has made Pro Bowl in 9 of his 10 years and leads active players for appearances. He missed out only in his rookie season. [Ed. Note: Lambert was defensive rookie of the year in '74]. He has led the Steelers in tackles all 10. They didn't keep stats for tackles and assists in the old days, but he probably has more than any Steeler ever.
"Last year, when the Bengals beat Pittsburgh, they ran 75 plays," says Mike Giddings, who operates a private scouting service and grades all NFL players. "Lambert was in on 31 tackles. He had 22 at halftime. I don't see how his body could stand it."
"Bud Carson was the defensive coach, and having Lambert allowed him to do things that had been unheard of," Russell says. "Bud had him covering the tight end all over the field. He'd assign him the first back out of the backfield. Normally the middle linebacker covered the second back, which is a piece of cake; he's just a floater. But the first back, my God, it was thought to be an impossible assignment for a middle linebacker. He'd have Lambert making calls and changing the defense three, four, five times when we'd play a team like the Cowboys that kept changing their sets. No one ever tried to match the Cowboys call for call. Usually Dallas would get a team into some kind of simplistic zone, and that's when Staubach went to work, but Carson would have us changing our calls as many times as they changed sets. And Jack had to know everything, call everything."
Against the run he'd read everything right, always get leverage and balance on the blocker. "There wasn't an NFL center who could cut him off on a sweep," Russell says. "He'd read and he was gone."
Al Davis remembers a play Lambert made in the '75 season's AFC Championship game against the Raiders. "There were seven seconds left and we were down 16-10," he says. "We hit Cliff Branch deep down the sideline and he was going to lateral to Ted Kwalick, our tight end. Lambert read it and positioned himself on Kwalick to take the lateral away, and Mel Blount tackled Branch on the 15-yard line. It ws a great play by Lambert, a great read, and it never showed up in the stats."
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>That fact that Schmidt was one of the pioneers of the position should be a positive b/c he demonstrated an excellent ability to read defenses and make plays (per the HOF player page).
Schmidt might have benefited from the general LB All Pro or he still might have been awarded the distinction. I think it is something that can be debated either way. The same can be said for Butkus and the other MLB if the had the option of the general LB ALL Pro label. Howley and Curtis were pretty darn good LB's and might have found their way into the mix any ways.
Thanks for posting the info on the All Pro's b/c it does provide a reference point.
I wish I could remember where I saw the Schmidt argument. >>
What being a pioneer does is put him in the discussion of the top 10 LBs of all time. Because of what he did and WHEN he did it. But we are comparing players here, and specifcally the skill set each player brought to the field.
As far as the LB position changing to being identifed as MLB, there is no debate, that it reduced the number of possible 1st Team All-Pro MLBs from 3 (which happened in 1958= Schmidt, George, Huff) to 1. I wish I had the vote count that far back, but unfortunately I do not. But I can tell you that the ONLY year prior to his injury in 1973 that he was not either 1st team or 2nd team (meaning top 2 MLB in football that season) was 1967. That year, Nobis was 1st Team and Nitschke 2nd. And Nobis that year (unofficially) had over 200 solo tackles in 14 games (BEAST).
Really, the only knock on Butkus was that he never won a Championship. But if you look at those Bears teams from his era, other than Sayers, man they were GARBAGE talent wise. They had Atkins and Ditka for a couple of those years but really only so much an MLB can do to actually WIN games for his team...lol
I'd love to read that article as well as see who exactly wrote it. Some unknown blogger who was simply counting up Pro Bowls and All-Pros, or was it a respected football historian who witnessed the play of both players? I doubt it would CHANGE my opinion, but at least might give me a reason to rank Schmidt even higher on my list of All-Time LBs. Here are a couple of reference points for you in the debate from third party opinions:
Jason
ESPN Voting
Peter King >>
My point on being a pioneer centered on Schmidt's dynamic ability to read offenses and attack plays. He was demonstrating an outstanding skill set for a position still in its infancy.
True, the 1 first team would have hurt Schmidt, George, or Huff but w/out the vote it hard to know where each placed.
I can't fault Butkus for not winning a Championship on those terrible Bear's teams, but I can't ignore that Schmidt won two either. IMO winning a championship only helps a great player look better.
Thanks for posting the links. I wish Butkus would have stayed healthy and had a longer career. As a person who never saw him play it does seem like he's more a product of star power and the years he was especially dominant prior to the knee injuries. He was better in pass coverage than I thought and he was a devastating hitter, I just feel he wasn't great over a prolonged period of time.
I want to say it was link a friend sent me off the pro football researchers site but I'm not sure.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
My point on being a pioneer centered on Schmidt's dynamic ability to read offenses and attack plays. He was demonstrating an outstanding skill set for a position still in its infancy.
True, the 1 first team would have hurt Schmidt, George, or Huff but w/out the vote it hard to know where each placed.
I can't fault Butkus for not winning a Championship on those terrible Bear's teams, but I can't ignore that Schmidt won two either. IMO winning a championship only helps a great player look better.
Thanks for posting the links. I wish Butkus would have stayed healthy and had a longer career. As a person who never saw him play it does seem like he's more a product of star power and the years he was especially dominant prior to the knee injuries. He was better in pass coverage than I thought and he was a devastating hitter, I just feel he wasn't great over a prolonged period of time.
I want to say it was link a friend sent me off the pro football researchers site but I'm not sure. >>
Point well taken. He and Sam Huff were really the first "QB of the defense" MLBs. And it's why he is considered one of the best to ever play the position. Just not THE best.
On the link, I know one of the PFRA members, Sean Lehman is an avid Butkus basher. I'd be willing to bet if it was a story written for PFRA's Coffin Corner periodical, that Lehman wrote it. It's not an uncommon theme. There are Unitas bashers, Jim Brown bashers, Emmitt Smith bashers, Barry Sanders bashers, etc. When you are widely considered one of, if not the best to ever play your position, the ''over rated" theme is what others use when they have a differing opinion. You can find positives and negatives on every single player who's ever played the game. There are no "perfect" players.
Butkus had an 8 year run in which he played so well , and was so dominant (for mostly crappy teams) that he was considered the STANDARD to which all other MLBs are compared to this day..40+ years later! The NCAA award for best linebacker each year is the Butkus award. He took what Chuck Bednarik and NightTrain Lane started and he made it an art form.
If you've never seen Butkus play, you should find some footage. I'm sure YouTube or Hulu has got something. Maybe even NFL Network online. He was Ray Lewis in his prime, but meaner. I love watching Butkus, and if you enjoy see hard hits and helmets getting torn off, you gotta see the guy in action. Lambert was the smaller version who could cover. But played with the same demeanor, the way football was meant to be played. Not like the basketball on grass you mostly see today.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.