Wayne Fontes Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 I saw LT play----and think it is debatable whether he was better than Bruce. I DO lean slightly toward LT.....but you people who say its a no-brainer/slam dunk that LT was so much better....no.... Guys like LT and Ronnie Lott got by on reputation when past their prime. Lott was mediocre when the 9ers cut him in 1989 yet still got A list props. LT was not the same player by 88 or so, when the coke and beatings minimized his burst. Bruce was a dominant player through 1999. And consistently very good with the Skins till the end.
Big Turk Posted February 10, 2009 Author Posted February 10, 2009 I saw LT play----and think it is debatable whether he was better than Bruce. I DO lean slightly toward LT.....but you people who say its a no-brainer/slam dunk that LT was so much better....no.... I agree...LT was a tremendous player, but let's face it...watch the old highlights and see how many times he rushes in unblocked, or with only a RB standing between him and the QB. Out of all the players who could block a defensive player, the RB is the worst blocker you could face. Basically his sacks were gift wrapped for him a large percentage of the time. Smith rushed the passer against the other teams BEST lineman in most cases, the LT(Left Tackle, not Lawrence Taylor ), so in my mind his sack total is much more impressive than Taylor's, especially since he averaged more per year than Taylor did.
The Dean Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 I agree...LT was a tremendous player, but let's face it...watch the old highlights and see how many times he rushes in unblocked, or with only a RB standing between him and the QB. Out of all the players who could block an LB, the RB is the worst blocker you could face. Basically his sacks were gift wrapped for him a large percentage of the time. Smith rushed the passer against the other teams BEST lineman in most cases, the LT(Left Tackle, not Lawrence Taylor ), so in my mind his sack total is much more impressive than Taylor's, especially since he averaged more per year than Taylor did. I agree with regard to sack totals....Bruce was better at sacks. But that wasn't the question of the post. LT did more, across the board, and has been mentioned, really changed the game.
Tcali Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 I agree with regard to sack totals....Bruce was better at sacks. But that wasn't the question of the post. LT did more, across the board, and has been mentioned, really changed the game. I very slighhhhhhttttly lean toward LT. But the people scoffing at the fact that the point can even be debated ...well they are being absurd.-And many points in the 'Bruce' argument are at least legit.
Tcali Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Guys like LT and Ronnie Lott got by on reputation when past their prime. Lott was mediocre when the 9ers cut him in 1989 yet still got A list props. LT was not the same player by 88 or so, when the coke and beatings minimized his burst. Bruce was a dominant player through 1999. And consistently very good with the Skins till the end. mmmm..after about 1996 Bruce was taking a lot of plays off...-I think Bruce was all universe from 87-91---pressure every play every game...
Buftex Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Taylor played on very good football teams?????? WOW! Maybe you missed the only meaningful period of the Bills last 30 years--but they went to 4 consecutive SBs during Sith's career, chief. The LT Giants did not. You make it sound like Bruce was toiling in obscurity. Unbelievable argument!! Smith was great (take that Reggie White she-ite outside, Gomer)--he's in the HOF. But this discussion is only possible on a Bills fansite. If you saw LT play, you agree he was the best, most feared and fearsome defender in NFL history. That is exactly my point, Mr Wow! I am not denying, at all, that LT was a great player, maybe the greatest defensive player of all time. But, you can't tell me, "great" on the NY Giants carries a lot more weight in the court of public opionion on these kinds of matters, than being "great" playing for the Buffalo Bills. Part of the reason that this discussion is only possible on a Bills fansite. Thats all I got for you capn'...
truth on hold Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Lawrence Taylor will be on Dancing with the Stars and the blurb about him is:"Taylor is widely considered the best defensive player in the history of the National Football League" That got me thinking...who was better, Bruce Smith or Lawrence Taylor? I know both play different positions, but both changed the way teams had to gameplan around them, and usually were double or even triple teamed to no avail. Just would like some other thoughts...of course being a homer I will say I think Bruce was better because he a more complete player against the run and rushed the passer from a disadvantageous position of a 3-4 DE versus Taylor who rushed the passer from the "sacking" position of OLB in the 3-4... Obviously both were tremendous players, but my vote goes to Bruce... Question needs to be rephrased: for a single season playing at their best perhaps LT was more disruptive ... not by much but I think he has a slight edge in opposing offenses fearing him more. But over the course of a career and multiple seasons Smith was the better player.
rocwocka Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Certainly "Apples and Oranges"... LT played almost exclusively as the "blitz" LB in the 3-4 scheme (although we've all seen footage of him making a great pick from time to time). Bruce played the RDE in the same scheme - a position that is normally occupied by someone 30-40 lbs heavier and designated to occupy blockers/stop the run. I think fans will remember correctly that Bruce was as good, or better than most at stopping the run as he matured. Having 200 sacks playing RDE mostly in a 3-4 defense has to put him well ahead of someone (LT) that usually was dealing with a TE or RB to block him on his way to the QB. In my opinion, Bruce is the better player.
WellDressed Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Wow............LT is losing in this poll..........wow.........
1billsfan Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Wow............LT is losing in this poll..........wow......... That doesn't say much for the intelligence level of this board. LT was on another level entirely than Bruce "it's all about me, play way past my prime to beat the sack record" Smith. Smith was great, LT was one of the greatest. It's as simple as that. I'm shocked at the results of this poll.
WellDressed Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 That doesn't say much for the intelligence level of this board. LT was on another level entirely than Bruce "it's all about me, play way past my prime to beat the sack record" Smith. Smith was great, LT was one of the greatest. It's as simple as that. I'm shocked at the results of this poll. Everyone is drinking a tad to much courage juice with Bruce going in the hall.
billsfan_34 Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Taylor, but not by all that much. I don't buy that "best defensive player in the history of..." stuff either. Top ten, though, maybe. Sorry, but I don't vote in polls. Who cares who is better! They were both great ball players and one was an end and one a linebacker. Cant we have better posts than this?
Big Turk Posted February 10, 2009 Author Posted February 10, 2009 That doesn't say much for the intelligence level of this board. LT was on another level entirely than Bruce "it's all about me, play way past my prime to beat the sack record" Smith. Smith was great, LT was one of the greatest. It's as simple as that. I'm shocked at the results of this poll. imagine how many more sacks Smith would have had if his primary blocker was nobody(was allowed to rush in untouched), an RB, FB or TE...and he STILL averaged more sacks per year than Taylor who did have the luxury of having those players attempting to block him...
John Adams Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 That doesn't say much for the intelligence level of this board. LT was on another level entirely than Bruce "it's all about me, play way past my prime to beat the sack record" Smith. Smith was great, LT was one of the greatest. It's as simple as that. I'm shocked at the results of this poll. A Bills board is the only place where this debate even happens, let alone sides with Bruce. I love Bruce but he wasn't even better than Reggie White and he was certainly not LT.
The Dean Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 I very slighhhhhhttttly lean toward LT. But the people scoffing at the fact that the point can even be debated ...well they are being absurd.-And many points in the 'Bruce' argument are at least legit. Oh, I'm with you. The arguments that it isn't even close, one way or the other, are absurd, IMO. I think it's LT, decisively...but close...like a 1/2 horse lead, at the finish. Like a fighter than wins 8 or 12 rounds, but most of the rounds are close.
3 left feet Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Just because she's your wife, that doesn't make her the most beautiful woman in the world----let alone the room. Go to some other board and bring this weak crap and watch the response. Call your local sports radio show and ask them. Stop talking about weak side blockers and sack totals. Stop talking about allstar defensive teammates and drug addictions. The poster who earlier said that LT is one of the greatest football players of all time is correct. Bruce made my Sundays that much more special, and for that he should be applauded and admired. Let his legacy be that of the individual champion he was/is, but not of legend. Leave that to Taylor.
Bufcomments Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Lawrence Taylor will be on Dancing with the Stars and the blurb about him is:"Taylor is widely considered the best defensive player in the history of the National Football League" That got me thinking...who was better, Bruce Smith or Lawrence Taylor? I know both play different positions, but both changed the way teams had to gameplan around them, and usually were double or even triple teamed to no avail. Just would like some other thoughts...of course being a homer I will say I think Bruce was better because he a more complete player against the run and rushed the passer from a disadvantageous position of a 3-4 DE versus Taylor who rushed the passer from the "sacking" position of OLB in the 3-4... Obviously both were tremendous players, but my vote goes to Bruce... LT he changed the game Love all the votes for Bruce and I had to think about it for a minute or two but Taylor in his prime was better than Bruce Hard to believe that but its true Taylor was part of 2 Super bowl winners "Just play like some crazed dogs" one of my fav quotes Ill say this too...if the Bills had won just 1 super bowl I would have giving it to Bruce dont forget he is the 2nd best DE to play behind the Late great Reggie White Taylor was the best LB to play the game period although Ray Lewis is a Very very close second IMO
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 All I know is that the Giants were tards when they picked Taylor. They already had Hall-of-Fame caliber linebackers and Taylor wasn't a good fit for their system anyway. It was a bad pick as it didn't consider their needs. Should've drafted a WR or TE, obviously.
tennesseeboy Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 very good question. I have to go with Taylor, but Smith isn't far behind at all. Certainly two of the top five or six defensive players of the modern era (last fifty years.)
Thurman#1 Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Good stuff. I know one thing and I've been saying this for a while now, Jerry Rice is the best player in NFL history very simply because you can debate every other position all day long but you can't debate WR for one second. Don Hutson is a very legit choice for greatest WR of all time. He was so far above other WRs of his era it just makes you laugh. I know most of you young guys have never heard of him, but Jerry Rice is NOT the unanimous choice as greatest WR. Though he certainly IS the greatest WR of the modern era. And again, for all you folks under 25, Johnny Unitas is considered by many to be the best QB in NFL history. There is one position where you can't debate who the best is. And that's running back. Jim Brown is the greatest running back in history, and virtually nobody denies this. In a defense-oriented era without all the help the rules give offenses these days, in the days when horse collars, clothes-lines and face masks weren't just not penalized, they were encouraged, Jim Brown put together the most impressive yards per carry stat ever, right up to this day. The battle is for second place. Brown is #1. And your methodology could be said to work, because Brown is indeed considered as the best football player ever. Also the best lacrosse player ever, or at least in recorded history, by the way. Perhaps the ancient native Americans had someone better, but we'll never know.
Recommended Posts