Search results

Way he used to explain it is he had to bait the QBs. He would take that baiting **** to an extreme sometimes. But he did it because he always felt they were still in his range. He also had that much confidence in the rest of the group.

Not sure what injury you're speaking about. Academics is why alot of schools didn't go after him on top of competition. Recruiting was more about who you know at the time. Also just realized a few people said Sean was a 5 star. Not sure if u said that too. Someone said that's what seperates him...

Thanks for educating me on one of my best friends. Instead of lecturing me you could ask what I'm implying. The point in saying he's them but far better is the comparison to how they were known as some of the most punishing safeties in league history. They were both primarily box safeties but...

You forget most of these stooper fans on here have no clue about the history of the program. Our success just started for them in the mid 90s. No clue what the 70s and 80s putt out. If it wasn't for Jim's health problems none of them would even know Jimmy Kelly.

Sean was Ronnie Lott or Steve Atwater 2.00000.

Not that **** soon. Lol

Said it all there. You're not able to watch film and understand at all apparently what's going on. Film is timeless. Doesn't take some genius level **** to comprehend what's going on. Only thing that differs is knowing the difference in rules(enforcement)& style of play. That's like saying you...

I'm nowhere near as old as that comment implies. Simply stating I've know Ted very well for a long time. Did I ever see him play in person, no. I've seen plenty of his film though cause when he drinks(which he does often)he likes to reminisce.

Actually I definitely saw Ted. I spent plenty of days with Ted and his wife. But you're still not just clarifying you meant in a 4-3 or Mike capacity. Plenty of legit linebackers play in a 3-4. Still do. To insinuate lt couldn't do it all isn't accurate either. Regardless I ain't trying to take...

And who's fault is that if you make statements about the history of the game yet you're not up on the history you speak on... You can disagree if you'd like but the only distinction you made was to the position. Not the era or style of play. Lt played lb period. You look at it that way then alot...

You're changing the narrative now. Lb is lb regardless of their role or responsibilities. As was stated, this is why it's always foolish to state such and such IS the best ever at their position. It's like someone using stats to say emmitt is clearly the best rb ever. Anyone with a brain knows...

He's telling you the truth. What y'all are both arguing makes no sense though. Other than in college obviously, there is no one without the other. They are BOTH arguably the BEST EVER at their positions. You're just arguing semantics when each is that good. Neither would have been as good as...