The Jack Lambert Appreciation Thread - Page 2

bearsfan_51 · 03-29-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9

why, in your opinion?

Well I think he's the best of the new breed. At the front of the vanguard if you will.

One could make a case for Ray Lewis too, but I think his flame burnt out too fast.

As I stated before, I think people tend to overate the massive hits that Butkus and Lambert laid because they played in an era in which the defense had MUCH more leniancy from the league in terms of rules. If you could tackle a guy by choking him or taking a forearm to his face I promise you guys like Urlacher and Merriman would have flashier highlights films.

Also, Singletary was, as BBD pointed out, probably the smartest linebacker to ever play the position. He ran the 46 like a maestro, and I tend to value intelligence over power at almost every position (except defensive line). Singletary made the people around him better. I don't think you could say that about Lambert or Butkus and with Ray Lewis I think it was more the case that the people around him (namely Adams and Goose) made him better than he was.

njx9 · 03-29-2007, 01:34 PM

i wouldn't have actually thought ray lewis belonged in the conversation for top MLB ever. as far as i've ever seen people play, singletary was the guy i loved (and i saw a fair amount of him, as my entire family was from detroit). realistically, i think this comes down to the same thing every other question comes down to here: which era are we talking about? would urlacher really have been as successful against guys like, for instance, earl campbell who run with more power than 99% of any running back playing right now? would lambert/butkus have even been able to catch up to an LT or cover someone like Steven Jackson or Bryant Westbrook out of the backfield? meh, it's a bit of a cop out (actually, bit is understating it), but i'm just not sold you can positively identify anyone as having really been a better MLB across all eras.

bigbluedefense · 03-29-2007, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Well I think he's the best of the new breed. At the front of the vanguard if you will.

One could make a case for Ray Lewis too, but I think his flame burnt out too fast.

As I stated before, I think people tend to overate the massive hits that Butkus and Lambert laid because they played in an era in which the defense had MUCH more leniancy from the league in terms of rules. If you could tackle a guy by choking him or taking a forearm to his face I promise you guys like Urlacher and Merriman would have flashier highlights films.

Also, Singletary was, as BBD pointed out, probably the smartest linebacker to ever play the position. He ran the 46 like a maestro, and I tend to value intelligence over power at almost every position (except defensive line). Singletary made the people around him better. I don't think you could say that about Lambert or Butkus and with Ray Lewis I think it was more the case that the people around him (namely Adams and Goose) made him better than he was.

To play devil's advocate, you can say that Hampton and Fridge did the same for Singletary.

I view Singletary as a better version of Lewis. Lewis is Singletary Lite if you will.

bigbluedefense · 03-29-2007, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9

i wouldn't have actually thought ray lewis belonged in the conversation for top MLB ever. as far as i've ever seen people play, singletary was the guy i loved (and i saw a fair amount of him, as my entire family was from detroit). realistically, i think this comes down to the same thing every other question comes down to here: which era are we talking about? would urlacher really have been as successful against guys like, for instance, earl campbell who run with more power than 99% of any running back playing right now? would lambert/butkus have even been able to catch up to an LT or cover someone like Steven Jackson or Bryant Westbrook out of the backfield? meh, it's a bit of a cop out (actually, bit is understating it), but i'm just not sold you can positively identify anyone as having really been a better MLB across all eras.

You can say that about any position in the game. Would Alan Page hack it at DT at 255 lbs etc.

I think when you talk about topics like this, you have to evaluate it based on dominance in each era. Who dominated their era more? Also factor in how much impact did the said player have on the evolution of the game. I think those 2 factors are the most important when discussing topics like this.

bearsfan_51 · 03-29-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

To play devil's advocate, you can say that Hampton and Fridge did the same for Singletary.

I view Singletary as a better version of Lewis. Lewis is Singletary Lite if you will.

Meh..the Fridge. I poop on the Fridge.

bigmac076 · 03-29-2007, 01:43 PM

Count Dracula In Cleats Is the Greatest of All-Time

njx9 · 03-29-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

I think when you talk about topics like this, you have to evaluate it based on dominance in each era. Who dominated their era more? Also factor in how much impact did the said player have on the evolution of the game. I think those 2 factors are the most important when discussing topics like this.

absolutely. but again, i'm not sure you can quantitatively say that lambert was less dominant than any other guy you'd put in the top 5 or that he affected the game any less (those hits are illegal for a reason, just like the head slaps that deacon jones used). i just have a hard time buying that, once you get down to the top 3-5 guys at a spot, that there's any realistic way to order them other than personal preference.

TNewFan41 · 03-29-2007, 01:52 PM

Great player, great mentality.

bigbluedefense · 03-29-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9

absolutely. but again, i'm not sure you can quantitatively say that lambert was less dominant than any other guy you'd put in the top 5 or that he affected the game any less (those hits are illegal for a reason, just like the head slaps that deacon jones used). i just have a hard time buying that, once you get down to the top 3-5 guys at a spot, that there's any realistic way to order them other than personal preference.

Some positions are harder than others, sure. I think MLB is one of the hardest positions to rate.

I think Rice is unaminously the best WR ever, and LT the best rushbacker ever. But then positions like QB, DT, MIKE, etc can be rather difficult.

It depends on the talent at hand I guess. And often at times, it is based more on preference than actual fact. Makes for great conversation either way.

Ward · 03-29-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Some positions are harder than others, sure. I think MLB is one of the hardest positions to rate.

I think Rice is unaminously the best WR ever, and LT the best rushbacker ever. But then positions like QB, DT, MIKE, etc can be rather difficult.

It depends on the talent at hand I guess. And often at times, it is based more on preference than actual fact. Makes for great conversation either way.

There are very few GOATs that are commonly accepted. Even Jim Brown is losing that recognition from newer fans to the game, and it disgusts me. Maybe in 10 years people start forgetting about Rice too. The easiests GOATs at positions for me are:

RB - Jim Brown
WR - Jerry Rice
LT - Anthony Munoz
LB/DE - Lawrence Taylor
S - Ronnie Lott

someone447 · 03-29-2007, 02:59 PM

I don't think Brown is a clear cut GOAT. Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, and Jim Brown all have arguments for GOAT. Barry Sanders, to me, is without a doubt the best RUNNER of them all. Is that enough to give him the GOAT crown? I don't think so. Jim Brown was a better overall back than Sanders, but Sanders did so much with no offensive line and QBs the likes of Scott Mitchell. Not to mention Jim Brown was the size of the lineman he played against. I have Barry Sanders and Jim Brown as 1A and 1B.

bearsfan_51 · 03-29-2007, 03:02 PM

Jim Brown is another product of being much bigger than his competitors. He's like Walt Chamberlin to me; completely dominant at his time, but not the greatest because of that.

Plus he hit women. Anyone that hits women is completely whiped off my list of anything good.

Ward · 03-29-2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Jim Brown is another product of being much bigger than his competitors. He's like Walt Chamberlin to me; completely dominant at his time, but not the greatest because of that.

Plus he hit women. Anyone that hits women is completely whiped off my list of anything good.

And Wilt is considered one of the GOATs. I don't know why you would hold someone of exceptional physical gifts back just for being born that way.

He hit women, yes. He has also done more to end gang violence single handedly than anyone before him, was the first black action star, and was a Playgirl centerfold. What's not to like?

njx9 · 03-29-2007, 03:29 PM

well let's be honest, playgirl is probably a strike against him as i don't know any women who "read" it.

bigbluedefense · 03-29-2007, 03:59 PM

You can't take personal lives into account. Thered be a whole lot of NFL players you would have to reject if thats the case.

As far as Barry Sanders, goes, this is one of the big misconceptions of him: he had no oline.

That is not true. The problem was, ironically, Sanders had no vision. He would continually not hit the proper hole, and would rather dance in the backfield to try to break a long run.

Thats why he was an inconsistent runner. There were many times he couldve gotten 4, but thats not Barry. He rather dance and try to get 80. Thats my main issue with him.

None the less, he had his best year when he finally got a FB to show him the way. Not surprising since his vision was below average.

As for Jim Brown. He was the best ever. Arguably the most dominant offensive player in NFL history. Yeah he was bigger than everyone, but we can't hold that against him.

njx9 · 03-29-2007, 04:09 PM

i don't buy that barry ever had an o-line. he didn't have NO o-line (lomas brown was a pretty good LT), but it wasn't collectively ever better than mediocre.

bearsfan_51 · 03-29-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

You can't take personal lives into account. Thered be a whole lot of NFL players you would have to reject if thats the case.

I can do whatever I want. I could care less if players do drugs or aren't nice people, gamble, carry guns, "make it rain", whatever. However, if you beat women or drive drunk you are not eligible for any sort of praise from me. Be lucky you aren't in jail and leave it at that.

bigbluedefense · 03-29-2007, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

I can do whatever I want. I could care less if players do drugs or aren't nice people, gamble, carry guns, "make it rain", whatever. However, if you beat women or drive drunk you are not eligible for any sort of praise from me. Be lucky you aren't in jail and leave it at that.

Is there something you wanna tell us BF51?

bigbluedefense · 03-29-2007, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9

i don't buy that barry ever had an o-line. he didn't have NO o-line (lomas brown was a pretty good LT), but it wasn't collectively ever better than mediocre.

It was average. Maybe a little below average. Not 2007 Oakland Raider bad though.

yourfavestoner · 03-29-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

I can do whatever I want. I could care less if players do drugs or aren't nice people, gamble, carry guns, "make it rain", whatever. However, if you beat women or drive drunk you are not eligible for any sort of praise from me. Be lucky you aren't in jail and leave it at that.

Not to seem overly assholeish, but this whole idea of feminism is amusing to me. What I'm about to say isn't something I openly advocate. Just pointing out some inconsistencies.

If everybody wants women to be viewed as men's "equals," yet they want more severe punishments for hitting a woman instead of a man.

Also, in order to get a job as, say, a police officer, one must pass a variety a physical tests. The qualifications for women are far, far easier than those that men are forced to pass.

If feminists are really clamoring for equality, then it should be equality throughout everything. Is it really fair to let women pick and choose the parts that they want to be equal, and then use the rest to their advantage?

bigbluedefense · 03-29-2007, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yourfavestoner

Not to seem overly assholeish, but this whole idea of feminism is amusing to me. What I'm about to say isn't something I openly advocate. Just pointing out some inconsistencies.

If everybody wants women to be viewed as men's "equals," yet they want more severe punishments for hitting a woman instead of a man.

Also, in order to get a job as, say, a police officer, one must pass a variety a physical tests. The qualifications for women are far, far easier than those that men are forced to pass.

If feminists are really clamoring for equality, then it should be equality throughout everything. Is it really fair to let women pick and choose the parts that they want to be equal, and then use the rest to their advantage?

Ugh...I HATE feminists. But let's leave that out of this thread. I propose you make a separate thread on that in off topic.

njx9 · 03-29-2007, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

It was average. Maybe a little below average. Not 2007 Oakland Raider bad though.

i think, in comparison to any other running back you'd consider even top 20, it was likely the worst collection of overall talent (though i'm open to discussion). i'd also say that, as a result of the schemes run, a fair number of the plays weren't your typical drive block plays that would have given barry a wide open lane to run through. the run and shoot offense wasn't really known so much for being a great "run" offense. barry never even had a fullback until his later years, something that is basically unheard of today.

yourfavestoner · 03-29-2007, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Ugh...I HATE feminists. But let's leave that out of this thread. I propose you make a separate thread on that in off topic.

I don't even want to, as I doubt people on here would even care. In fact, I don't even care that much. I just feel like if you're going to ***** about wanting equality, then you better not complain when you get total equality.

Now - resume thread. Sorry for hijacking.

bigbluedefense · 03-29-2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9

i think, in comparison to any other running back you'd consider even top 20, it was likely the worst collection of overall talent (though i'm open to discussion). i'd also say that, as a result of the schemes run, a fair number of the plays weren't your typical drive block plays that would have given barry a wide open lane to run through. the run and shoot offense wasn't really known so much for being a great "run" offense. barry never even had a fullback until his later years, something that is basically unheard of today.

That is all true. I can't deny the sucktitude of the Lion's front office and their inept coaching.

RB is a toughy. Id go with Brown, but I guess a legit argument can be made for Sanders.

yourfavestoner · 03-29-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9

i think, in comparison to any other running back you'd consider even top 20, it was likely the worst collection of overall talent (though i'm open to discussion). i'd also say that, as a result of the schemes run, a fair number of the plays weren't your typical drive block plays that would have given barry a wide open lane to run through. the run and shoot offense wasn't really known so much for being a great "run" offense. barry never even had a fullback until his later years, something that is basically unheard of today.

At the same time, though, the run-n-shoot offense should have been ideal for a back like Barry, as it spreads the defense out and opens up huge cutback lanes.