If you had the chance to have any.... - Page 3

SCMom · 05-27-2011, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thumper

Ham was 6-3, 224. He'd get tossed around like a rag doll in the
era that Lloyd and Harrison played in. 6-3, 224 is a thin guy. He's get
pounded today, hence if I had my choice, I'd take the other two guys
since they can bring the thunder than Ham never could. Harrison is
6-0, 242. Now that is SIZE and leverage. He totally disrupts offenses.
Ham was more of a put himself in position kind of guy - not a wrecking
ball, which both GL and JH are. You want my Crystal Ball? You got it.
It's called 224 is too small and no way does a 224 lb OLB make the
hall of fame on Pgh's recent teams.

Ok...but he DIDN'T play in the same era as Lloyd and Harrison. With strength and conditioning being different now for athletes, he'd probably be bigger just because of that.

As has been mentioned already (and skipped over by you twice now), why did you put him on the list if you were just going to trash the opinions of those that chose him? He did make the HOF...that means he's not a total scrub. And Lambert was pretty skinny too, but put fear into other players.

If you were looking for big, new era players, why didn't you include Greene or Kirkland or Porter?

Ham is widely considered to be one of the best linebackers to ever play the game. Not by Steelers standards either...by NFL standards. Harrison and Lloyd don't even crack the top 20 list on most (if not all) reputable lists.

MattsMe · 05-27-2011, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thumper

Ham was 6-3, 224. He'd get tossed around like a rag doll in the
era that Lloyd and Harrison played in. 6-3, 224 is a thin guy. He's get
pounded today, hence if I had my choice, I'd take the other two guys
since they can bring the thunder than Ham never could. Harrison is
6-0, 242. Now that is SIZE and leverage. He totally disrupts offenses.
Ham was more of a put himself in position kind of guy - not a wrecking
ball, which both GL and JH are. You want my Crystal Ball? You got it.
It's called 224 is too small and no way does a 224 lb OLB make the
hall of fame on Pgh's recent teams.

According to nfl.com, Lloyd was 6'2" and 228.

Ham was 6'1" and 225.

SCMom · 05-27-2011, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattsMe

According to nfl.com, Lloyd was 6'2" and 228.

Ham was 6'1" and 225.

What a *****. He'd never make it in today's NFL.

MattsMe · 05-27-2011, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCMom

What a *****. He'd never make it in today's NFL.

Exactly. Everyone knows Ham would have been incapable of gaining those last 3 pounds (that's where all the talent is) if he played in the 90's instead of the 70's.

It's not like there's a difference between a 4-3 olb and a 3-4 olb.

It's not like sports writers voted him the greatest outside linebacker of all time or anything.

I mean it would be different if he was known for his game changing big plays............................................. .................................................. ..

SCMom · 05-27-2011, 06:21 PM

Here's a decent write up on Ham from Bleacher Report. Yes, I know they're not the most reputable source, but if you look up any info on him, you'll find about the same.

Quote:

Ham has been called the most technically sound linebacker to ever play the game. There was no weakness in his game, he rarely missed time to injuries, rarely had a penalty called on him, and was never out of place. Some of the more fiery players from the era may be remembered a little better, but Ham was by all accounts what every coach in the league wanted.

Ham went to eight consecutive Pro Bowls, was a six-time first team All-Pro, and had a Steeler linebacker record 32 interceptions.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/4...ackers/page/19

Buddha Bus · 05-27-2011, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattsMe

According to nfl.com, Lloyd was 6'2" and 228.

Ham was 6'1" and 225.

This whole list sucks!!!! I say scrap it and start over with the 3 heaviest Steelers OLBs of all-time. Surely they must be the most dominant.

Everybody knows speed, instincts, skill, awareness, stamina, intelligence, etc. are all completely irrelevant to the equation.

thumper · 05-28-2011, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCMom

Ok...but he DIDN'T play in the same era as Lloyd and Harrison. With strength and conditioning being different now for athletes, he'd probably be bigger just because of that.

As has been mentioned already (and skipped over by you twice now), why did you put him on the list if you were just going to trash the opinions of those that chose him? He did make the HOF...that means he's not a total scrub. And Lambert was pretty skinny too, but put fear into other players.

If you were looking for big, new era players, why didn't you include Greene or Kirkland or Porter?

Ham is widely considered to be one of the best linebackers to ever play the game. Not by Steelers standards either...by NFL standards. Harrison and Lloyd don't even crack the top 20 list on most (if not all) reputable lists.

Oh wait, I'm not allowed to have an opinion now? I included Ham
because he belonged in the conversation but in MY OPINION, he
wouldn't be nearly as productive as Lloyd or Harrison if you had
a choice of all three in their prime IN THE CURRENT
ERA OF FOOTBALL.

And, I had to correct another poster about this, but INSIDE LBS ARE NOT
THE SAME AS OUTSIDE LBS! Kirkland was an inside LB as was Lambert
hence not in the discussion. Maybe I should have included Rod Woodson
on the list too - and Mike Webster while I am at it.

If you were putting a team together, right NOW, and had all three in their
prime, Ham would be too skinny. And, this just in, they did lift weights in
the 70s, and the Steelers were infamous for having the most players
on juice in that era. So, Ham was still a chicken legged light weight and
would still be if he were in his prime today. At 224 lbs, he'd get erased
out there. Imagine him trying to shed the block of a 260 lb TE. Good
luck with that.

thumper · 05-28-2011, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddha Bus

This whole list sucks!!!! I say scrap it and start over with the 3 heaviest Steelers OLBs of all-time. Surely they must be the most dominant.

Everybody knows speed, instincts, skill, awareness, stamina, intelligence, etc. are all completely irrelevant to the equation.

Go ahead and point out the current OLBs who are probowlers at 225 lbs.

Hell, find me decent starting OLBs at 225 or less. Most are all over
240 and a good deal are over 250. Ham would be like a bug getting
hit by a windshield at 80 MPH.

thumper · 05-28-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCMom

Here's a decent write up on Ham from Bleacher Report. Yes, I know they're not the most reputable source, but if you look up any info on him, you'll find about the same.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/4...ackers/page/19

Oh there is no doubt he was an extremely good player in his day.
He has endless accolades to prove it.

MattsMe · 05-28-2011, 02:16 PM

I blame mainstream media and the government for making us believe Ham was a great player.

We are all sheep.

	Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums? • Intelligent and friendly discussions. • It's free and it's quick. Always. • Enter events in the forums calendar. • Very user friendly software. • Exclusive contests and giveaways.
Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here	Our 2013 Goal: $400.00 - To Date: $00.00 (00.00%)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)