Best LB Corps Of All-Time?

do not ever question my loyalty to my team...there are NO 210 pound MLBs today, they would get freaking eaten alive. That defensive line was so dominating in every way and would still dominate today because its not hard to be big, strong and angry while playing one of the easiest postitions on the field. Now if you think those DBs could play with todays recievers your nuts, they wouldnt even be able to play with todays rules because their game was raping the reciever at the line and knocking him completely off their pattern...there was no 5 yard rule back then. The steel curtain needs to be directly credited to the Dline and thats the truth, they are the faces of the steel curtain for a reason. they all might have been great in their day but only a select few of them were true talents that would be able to hang with todays players. its a pissing contest to argue the points about players from the 70s vs players of today because older fans get butt hurt at the thought of the older players not being nearly as good when matched against modern talent....alot of steeler fans will never be able to accept another QB as being the greatest unless they win 5 superbowls but thats not how it is, terry bradshaw was simply not that good his TD to INT ratio was like 212-210....thats +2 and thats terrible but the truth is its probably harder to win one superbowl today than it was to win 4 back then because things are much more even in the era of FA and the salary cap. There are a few truely great talents from the 70s that we just so good that the thought of them playing in todays game is still scary....but the 75 steelers linebackers are not those guys imo

Jump all over me if you want, tell me im not a fan i dont care....its where i stand on it.

 

Same could be said about 90% of the Players from the 70's and 80's.

Russell, Lambert and Ham were ridiculous. How often did you watch them play? Same goes for Bradshaw, you are going off his numbers alone, but how often did you actually see him play? Winning 4 Super Bowls in 6 years is a feat no matter what era...if it was so easy, why didn't more teams do it?

 

that could be said about alot of players from the 70s and 80s...and those are the truely great players im talking about

im 18 years old, this is before my time....but i have seen alot of him playing and if i didnt i wouldnt have such a strong opinion.

Hell in the 70's people in Pittsburgh didnt get to see Lambert play on TV every week, local TV contract had not taken off and ESPN was not around in his day... For the most part outside of the playoffs or attending games people did not see many games at all... You got your sports news through the paper. that helped Lambert's legend. People had to judge him based on word of mouth rather than what they saw and that often causes the truth to be exaggerated. his career greatly suffered from troy polamalu hair syndrome, if lambert had teeth he wouldnt be nearly as popular

Winning 2 superbowls back then was sooooo much easier, once you had a powerhouse established...that was the powerhouse for years to come, the only thing that stopped them from winning more was injuries

if i had to fill out a fan application i would probably be turned away but that just makes me a rare breed. dont question my loyalty to them because they are my only team, the only team ill ever support, the only colors ill ever wear and the only team ill ever use in madden. I just refuse to ride all of their rods into the sunset

 

Thought Ray Lewis, Jamie Sharper, and Peter Boulware did a good job in 2000 with the least amount of points given up in a season. Plus a SB XXXV Trophy.

 

thomas, lewis, scott and suggs are the better raven group though....back in 2000 lewis was more of a one man show

 

I live in the Philadelphia Area and I saw plenty of their games probably close to 10 a year and all three of those guys were nasty. With their skills and attitudes, they could easily play in todays game.

Of course today's game is different and the players are bigger than 220 pounds, Lambert and Ham would be bigger as well if they were able to take advantage of the workout technology that teams and players have today. To say they couldn't compete because of their size is silly...it's two different time periods.

In 1976, the team was without Mean Joe Greene for a good portion of the season and that was one of the best defenses of all time...Lambert stepped up big time that season. Lambert was nasty mean...you didn't want to heck with him and Ham was one of the most talented LB's every. He could rush, tackle, cover short, cover deep...whatever you needed, he could do. He's still very under rated. Ham was one of the most intelligent players in the league and one of the fastest...

Without actually watching the games, you really have no idea what you are talking about. But you're young, you'll learn.

As for winning multiple Super Bowls, sure it was easier back then because Free Agency wasn't nearly as big as it is now, but regardless...it's still an impressive task. If it wasn't, there would've been more than one team to do it...more teams would've established the "powerhouses." But it wasn't that easy.

 

lambert and ham can't play in this day and age? you're smoking crack. i don't know if i'd go so far asto sauham is over rated, but come on, these two could start on anyteam in any era. more worthless crap spewed by k-train.

the "sal paolantonio" of gif. just saying dumb crap to get a reaction. :icon_rolleyes:

 

this is what i meant when i said older fans get butt hurt


and ward i completely get that they were terrific back in the day...but best ever? no freaking way. im saying it was easier to win 4 superbowls back then but its still 4 superbowls i get that...im not taking anything away from the fact that they were great in their day even though i would like an asterick next to it now since it was the steroids that helped terry bradshaw to that INCREDIBLE 212/210 +2 TD/INT ratio lol

 

who are the best ever k-train? you keep telling us who isn't, but who is?

this is an 18 year old speaking. too funny. :icon_rolleyes:

 

yeah too freaking funny...im 18 haha. It doesnt freaking matter how old i am, when 2040 rolls around and your long gone i wont be standing there saying how players from today are better when im sure the players in 2040 are far superior. older fans today live in the past and will never be able to accepts anyone being better than lambert or bradshaw when they werent all that great. Nothing is more annoying than a old homer...theres no reasoning with them.

Picking the unquestioned best is tough, i will say that i think the 90s steelers with lloyd and greene are better than the 70s steelers, but not as good as parcells giants or moras saints. Moras saints were special, they by themselves turned a perrenial loser into a team that could end up with a winning season...they might not have a ring but they were nasty in every way and the comparision isnt who has the most freaking jewelry. Also the talent in the thomas, lewis, scott, suggs group is freaking scary....all 4 of those groups would put the 70s steelers LBs to shame

 

who is the best k-train. cut your dribble. one team. who is it?

by the way, your age totally matters b/c you haven't seen the teams of the 70's play on a week to week basis. you haven't seen the teams of the 80's play on a week to week basis. you're going off of highlights and numbers, which shows your lack of knowledge on these teams. my opinion is that the dome patrol was the best unit. the 70's steelers are second and i saw both play. you saw neither play so you fail at the comparisons. bradshaw was great. not the best.

funny. i don't see myself as a homer, being a vikings fan.

so again, what's the team?

 

saints. made a loser know what its like to win

 

there you go. we agree.

 

but your allowing me to have that opinion....despite the fact i was 3?

ive seen plenty of football from before my time to allow me to form opinions, not just looking at stat sheets. i dont just make crap up. Ive seen, ive read and ive learned plenty over the years because its something that interests me.

 

Russell, Lambert and Ham were even better in 76 when they didn't win the Super Bowl. Also Ham and Lambert were legacy backers in helping Robin Cole and Dirt Winston when they came along after Russell retired.

 

A huge reason that Steelers Defense was so good was because the had a killer D-Line and a killer LB Corp to back them up. Ham, Russell and Lambert were ridiculous on an individual basis. If you say otherwise and never saw them play on a weekly basis, you are pulling crap out of thin air. The Dome Patrol could be in that conversation as well because they did it on a team that wasn't half as good as the Steelers of the 70's. However, they didn't win anything.

To say Bradshaw wasn't good by just listing the numbers is silly...clueless. :icon_rolleyes:

 

roll you smiley eyes at me all you want...he wasnt all that wonderful and should never be mentioned in the same breath with the best evers

 

Yeah...lol. Tell that to the football world.

 

Bradshaw doesn't touch Marino, Brady, Manning, and so many others.

 

there are so many QBs who are better than bradshaw...it would be hard to name all of them. when it comes to success he did very well. pound for pound talent and ability its not even close with so many guys. The dude said he didnt even know how to read a defense