Who would you take at DE over Reggie White?

[falco]

I was thinking about this today.

If you take any DE in history and draft him to your team today as a rookie, who would you pick?

And to make it interesting, I'm not speaking relatively; I'm talking about taking that player, as a rookie, and have them playing for your team in 2010.

I remember Reggie as being such a completely dominating player that I can't think of anyone I would take over him.

[Scott Campbell]

Nobody over Reggie.

[Brandon494]

I would have to agree and say no one over Reggie.

[Farley Face]

1. Gino Marchetti
2. Deacon Jones
3. Reggie White

[falco]

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/gino-marchetti-at.jpg

versus

http://espn-att.starwave.com/media/nfl/2004/1226/photo/white_03.jpg

[Bretsky]

Reggie is the best I've ever seen hands down

[Patler]

Deacon Jones for sure. I think he was the best ever in my time watching the NFL.

Others I would consider are Marchetti as mentioned, Doug Atkins simply because he played so well for so long, and I hate to say this, but the Viking's Carl Eller. Pretty dominating in his time, and played a long time.

[BlueBrewer]

Deacon Jones for sure. I think he was the best ever in my time watching the NFL.

Others I would consider are Marchetti as mentioned, Doug Atkins simply because he played so well for so long, and I hate to say this, but the Viking's Carl Eller. Pretty dominating in his time, and played a long time.


Does Deacon Jones get to use hid head slap technique?

[pbmax]

Maybe Jones. But the size/speed has changed so much, I don't think DEs can be compared over eras. Playing in the 50s means Marchetti is linebacker sized, I would suspect.

Also, O line pass blocking is far more lenient now than then. If someone locked onto Gino, would he be able to dislodge himself?

EDIT: He was 6-4 and 244 according to Pro Football Reference.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

No one.

[cheesner]

Gino Marchetti? 6'4" 244 lbs. Good luck with that.


Reggie White. If Reggie played in the time of Deacon Jones he would have had 400 sacks. The average OT in the early 70s was about 265 lbs. Reggie was 305 and ran a 4.6 40.


Personally, I thinkk he was much better than Deacon Jones - its just that the competition has improved (offensive lines). Deacon was 6'5" 275 which is within the realm of playing these days. he was the most dominating player of his day. But, the NFL has changed so much, he would have a more difficult time nowadays.

[Patler]

As many old timers have said, and current athletes have agreed, if the old timers had the benefits of current training methods they would have been bigger too.

[Deputy Nutz]

I really can't take anyone over Reggie White. Deacon Jones was unbelievable, but I can't see him as dominant in the time of Reggie White, as Reggie would have been in the time of Deacon Jones.

Reggie White was a physical freak. Not many pass rushers that were as dominant as Reggie were over 300 pounds and could play any position on the defensive line and still get to the QB. Reggie was a 3-4 defensive end and still got to the QB. Sometimes he would shift down over the center and still get to the QB, and of course rushing from the defensive end position in a 4 man front, Reggie was unstoppable.

Some may argue for Deacon Jones, and I won't tell them they are wrong, I just know that if I was to start a team tomorrow and I could pick any player from any era to start my team with, Reggie White would be in my top 5.

[Bretsky]

As many old timers have said, and current athletes have agreed, if the old timers had the benefits of current training methods they would have been bigger too.

Carl Eller :?:

[RashanGary]

Just players I've seen, I'd take Reggie White over anyone.

[Patler]

Carl Eller :?:

All I said about Carl Eller is that I would consider him. Pretty darn good DE for a heck of a long time.

[The Leaper]

Deacon Jones dominated in an era where defense mostly ruled.

Reggie White dominated in an era where offense mostly ruled.

Edge to Reggie White.

[hoosier]

The only DE that I think compares to Reggie White in the last three decades is Bruce Smith. I would be inclined to pick Reggie over Bruce, but that may be a result of my own bias and my having seen him play more. I know several knowledgeable Bills fans who feel strongly that Smith was the best DL of his generation.

[falco]

Where would everyone put a guy like Bruce Smith? Would he be a close #2 to Reggie?

[falco]

Wow, that's bizarre. Hoosier, you must have edged me out by a split second.

[The Leaper]

Bruce Smith was dominant...but the AFC during that era was far inferior to the NFC. They got their lunch handed to them every year in the Super Bowl.

Reggie played in the NFC.

Bruce played in the AFC.

Again, edge to Reggie White.

[Patler]

Bruce Smith approached White as a pure pass rusher. As an all-around DE, Smith wasn't not even close White.

[Patler]

Deacon Jones was a standout among many great defensive players, and many great defensive ends.

Reggie White was a standout among fewer great defensive players and few great defensive ends.

Advantage to the Deacon.

[Bretsky]

Carl Eller :?:

All I said about Carl Eller is that I would consider him. Pretty darn good DE for a heck of a long time.

I'll admit I only saw the latter part of Eller's career; but I always thought he was a good, solid, but not great player.

At his best was he that much better than Jared Allen ?

[jmbarnes101]

Richard Dent anyone? Someone already mentioned Smith and while I would choose Reggie these three are the probably the best of that era and could have still all been playing today.

[The Leaper]

Deacon Jones was a standout among many great defensive players, and many great defensive ends.

Reggie White was a standout among fewer great defensive players and few great defensive ends.

Advantage to the Deacon.

How so? The rules were slanted TOWARD the defense in Deacon's day, which is why there were more "standouts". It had nothing to do with talent on the field.

The rules were slanted AGAINST defense in Reggie's day. That makes what Reggie accomplished more impressive, because the rules of the league were stacked against him. If Reggie had played in Deacon's day, offensive lineman would have no chance of ever blocking White.

[red]

when reggie was still playing they use to play a tribute to him on the jumbo tron

the music to go along with the video was tina turner. YOU'RE SIMPLY THE BEST!!!!!!!!!!!!

reggie was no only one of the very best pass rushers of all time, if not the best, but also amazing against the run

you just had to watch the last few minutes of the super bowl win to see how much one man can take over a game

the absolute perfect combination of size, strength, speed and heart

[gbgary]

no one over Reggie!

[Patler]

Carl Eller :?:

All I said about Carl Eller is that I would consider him. Pretty darn good DE for a heck of a long time.

I'll admit I only saw the latter part of Eller's career; but I always thought he was a good, solid, but not great player.

At his best was he that much better than Jared Allen ?

Eller was a complete defensive end, played both the run and pass very well. He could be physically dominating. I think he was a more complete DE than Jared Allen and a more consistent performer than Jared Allen.

[Patler]

Deacon Jones was a standout among many great defensive players, and many great defensive ends.

Reggie White was a standout among fewer great defensive players and few great defensive ends.

Advantage to the Deacon.

How so? The rules were slanted TOWARD the defense in Deacon's day, which is why there were more "standouts". It had nothing to do with talent on the field.

The rules were slanted AGAINST defense in Reggie's day. That makes what Reggie accomplished more impressive, because the rules of the league were stacked against him. If Reggie had played in Deacon's day, offensive lineman would have no chance of ever blocking White.

I disagree, and am of the opinion Deacon Jones was better, but mostly I posted that the way I did just to prod you a bit! :lol:

[Iron Mike]

Of course rushing from the defensive end position in a 4 man front, Reggie was unstoppable.


You must not have seen the same Super Bowl I did in 1998. :(

[Patler]

As often happens in sports, the myth becomes larger than the man.

[twoseven]

Deacon Jones, sorry Reggie. what that guy did in his era was downright filthy. had they actually been keeping track of sacks when he played he would be the undisputed champ. plus the guy was scary and mean as shit, he didn't just make plays he tried to hurt the other guy.

Deacon as compared to the players back then, he is in another league. Reggie was better than those in his day, but not anywhere near the difference as Jones in his day.

I don't buy trying to compare Jones to others 20-30-40 years later on the same field. Were Deacon (40 years ago) exposed to the same things Reggie was in his years, and some now (modern lifting methods, eating methods, post injury rehab and recovery, better defensive schemes?) how much more dominant would he have been? Jones got by on raw size and strength and intelligence. He wasn't getting much if any help at all from modern science.

'Jones played in an era before sacks were an official statistic, but still registered 21 sacks during the 1967 season alone – which, by the way, was only 14 games long back then.

Jones’ unofficial career sack total of nearly 173.5 is absolutely astounding when you consider that the teams of his era ran the ball much more than in today’s pass happy NFL.' (he played in 191 games. white 232 games and 200 sacks, smith 279 games and 202 sacks)

Jim Brown to me is by far the greatest RB, hands down, for these same reasons.

Don Hutson gets my vote as WR over all but one or two for all the same reasons.

[twoseven]

Where would everyone put a guy like Bruce Smith? Would he be a close #2 to Reggie?for me, he's not even in my top 5. that he seemed to be hanging around around just long enough just to out-do reggie's sack numbers always pissed me off. Smith had to play 47 more games to get 2 more total sacks and 30 more total tackles than The Minister. bullshit.

[Deputy Nutz]

Of course rushing from the defensive end position in a 4 man front, Reggie was unstoppable.


You must not have seen the same Super Bowl I did in 1998. :(

Reggie gassed in the second half because there defensive line rotation, well stopped rotating because of injury. Reggie actually retired after the 96 Super Bowl, but came back and had a heck of a season at like age 36. He had 11 sacks and 46 tackles which was about average for the later half of his career.

He then came back again for the 1998 season and had 16 sacks and 4 forced fumbles in his last season with the Packers.

The guy was a monster even at age 37 in the 4-3.

The 97 Super Bowl hurt but when you have guys like Gabe Wilkins refusing to play through a minor knee injury in the Super Bowl because he is about to be a free agent really does a number on the ability to shut down the run. I am not sure, but I think they had to fill in the defensive end spot with Keith McKenzie when Wilkins pussed out. Ouch!

[CaptainKickass]

Who would you take at DE over Reggie White?

Just this guy:

"Noah Body" :D

"The Minister of Defense" was in a class all by himself.

[hoosier]

Bruce Smith approached White as a pure pass rusher. As an all-around DE, Smith wasn't not even close White.

"Approached"?? Smith was stuck playing in a 3-4 defense for most of his time in Buffalo whereas White played most if not all of his career in a 4-3. The fact that Smith was able to get 19 sacks in a season as a RDE in the 3-4 suggests to me that he would have had a lot more than that playing in the 4-3, and that he may well have been the hands-down better of the two in terms of pass rush.

[pbmax]

Deacon Jones, sorry Reggie. what that guy did in his era was downright filthy. had they actually been keeping track of sacks when he played he would be the undisputed champ. plus the guy was scary and mean as shit, he didn't just make plays he tried to hurt the other guy.

Deacon as compared to the players back then, he is in another league. Reggie was better than those in his day, but not anywhere near the difference as Jones in his day.

I don't buy trying to compare Jones to others 20-30-40 years later on the same field. Were Deacon (40 years ago) exposed to the same things Reggie was in his years, and some now (modern lifting methods, eating methods, post injury rehab and recovery, better defensive schemes?) how much more dominant would he have been? Jones got by on raw size and strength and intelligence. He wasn't getting much if any help at all from modern science.

'Jones played in an era before sacks were an official statistic, but still registered 21 sacks during the 1967 season alone – which, by the way, was only 14 games long back then.

Jones’ unofficial career sack total of nearly 173.5 is absolutely astounding when you consider that the teams of his era ran the ball much more than in today’s pass happy NFL.' (he played in 191 games. white 232 games and 200 sacks, smith 279 games and 202 sacks)

Jim Brown to me is by far the greatest RB, hands down, for these same reasons.

Don Hutson gets my vote as WR over all but one or two for all the same reasons.
I don't think that is true on the sack total. Now, a lot depends on who is reviewing tape. Deacon claimed for a long time he was well over 200. But the last review I saw (it was either the HOF or NFL Films) had him close to Reggie and Bruce Smith but under his count.

Now, a counting stat is limited. His sack rate (number of sacks versus pass plays faced) might look even better since teams passed less then. But without the pass blocking rule changes and the head slap, I say he had a decided advantage.

[twoseven]

Deacon Jones, sorry Reggie. what that guy did in his era was downright filthy. had they actually been keeping track of sacks when he played he would be the undisputed champ. plus the guy was scary and mean as shit, he didn't just make plays he tried to hurt the other guy.

Deacon as compared to the players back then, he is in another league. Reggie was better than those in his day, but not anywhere near the difference as Jones in his day.

I don't buy trying to compare Jones to others 20-30-40 years later on the same field. Were Deacon (40 years ago) exposed to the same things Reggie was in his years, and some now (modern lifting methods, eating methods, post injury rehab and recovery, better defensive schemes?) how much more dominant would he have been? Jones got by on raw size and strength and intelligence. He wasn't getting much if any help at all from modern science.

'Jones played in an era before sacks were an official statistic, but still registered 21 sacks during the 1967 season alone – which, by the way, was only 14 games long back then.

Jones’ unofficial career sack total of nearly 173.5 is absolutely astounding when you consider that the teams of his era ran the ball much more than in today’s pass happy NFL.' (he played in 191 games. white 232 games and 200 sacks, smith 279 games and 202 sacks)

Jim Brown to me is by far the greatest RB, hands down, for these same reasons.

Don Hutson gets my vote as WR over all but one or two for all the same reasons.
I don't think that is true on the sack total. Now, a lot depends on who is reviewing tape. Deacon claimed for a long time he was well over 200. But the last review I saw (it was either the HOF or NFL Films) had him close to Reggie and Bruce Smith but under his count.

Now, a counting stat is limited. His sack rate (number of sacks versus pass plays faced) might look even better since teams passed less then. But without the pass blocking rule changes and the head slap, I say he had a decided advantage.i quoted another's article on the unnofficial sack total. to me, whomever is one or two, reggie or deacon, i think number three on the list is decidedly lower, like they should just skip straight to number five.

[bobblehead]

Deacon Jones was a standout among many great defensive players, and many great defensive ends.

Reggie White was a standout among fewer great defensive players and few great defensive ends.

Advantage to the Deacon.

How so? The rules were slanted TOWARD the defense in Deacon's day, which is why there were more "standouts". It had nothing to do with talent on the field.

The rules were slanted AGAINST defense in Reggie's day. That makes what Reggie accomplished more impressive, because the rules of the league were stacked against him. If Reggie had played in Deacon's day, offensive lineman would have no chance of ever blocking White.

The NBA changed rules to slow down Wilt Chamberlain....the NBA changed rules to benefit Michael Jordan....still most people say Jordan is the greatest, I've never understood that.

As far as DE's go, I never got to see anyone before 1978, and I was only 8 then. Reggie is the hands down best I have ever seen as an all around DE. Just a question....do Klecko and Gastineau belong in the conversation?

[bobblehead]

when reggie was still playing they use to play a tribute to him on the jumbo tron

the music to go along with the video was tina turner. YOU'RE SIMPLY THE BEST!!!!!!!!!!!!

reggie was no only one of the very best pass rushers of all time, if not the best, but also amazing against the run

you just had to watch the last few minutes of the super bowl win to see how much one man can take over a game

the absolute perfect combination of size, strength, speed and (ed. enlarged ) heart

[pbmax]

Deacon Jones, sorry Reggie. what that guy did in his era was downright filthy. had they actually been keeping track of sacks when he played he would be the undisputed champ. plus the guy was scary and mean as shit, he didn't just make plays he tried to hurt the other guy.

Deacon as compared to the players back then, he is in another league. Reggie was better than those in his day, but not anywhere near the difference as Jones in his day.

I don't buy trying to compare Jones to others 20-30-40 years later on the same field. Were Deacon (40 years ago) exposed to the same things Reggie was in his years, and some now (modern lifting methods, eating methods, post injury rehab and recovery, better defensive schemes?) how much more dominant would he have been? Jones got by on raw size and strength and intelligence. He wasn't getting much if any help at all from modern science.

'Jones played in an era before sacks were an official statistic, but still registered 21 sacks during the 1967 season alone – which, by the way, was only 14 games long back then.

Jones’ unofficial career sack total of nearly 173.5 is absolutely astounding when you consider that the teams of his era ran the ball much more than in today’s pass happy NFL.' (he played in 191 games. white 232 games and 200 sacks, smith 279 games and 202 sacks)

Jim Brown to me is by far the greatest RB, hands down, for these same reasons.

Don Hutson gets my vote as WR over all but one or two for all the same reasons.
I don't think that is true on the sack total. Now, a lot depends on who is reviewing tape. Deacon claimed for a long time he was well over 200. But the last review I saw (it was either the HOF or NFL Films) had him close to Reggie and Bruce Smith but under his count.

Now, a counting stat is limited. His sack rate (number of sacks versus pass plays faced) might look even better since teams passed less then. But without the pass blocking rule changes and the head slap, I say he had a decided advantage.i quoted another's article on the unnofficial sack total. to me, whomever is one or two, reggie or deacon, i think number three on the list is decidedly lower, like they should just skip straight to number five.
My apologies. I missed the reference to 173, which is what I thought it was, but did not want to post going just on memory. So we are using the same source for his numbers. Deacon himself said he had reviewed film and had himself over 200. Which is part of what makes him fascinating, you would expect him to find a higher number.

Deacon may have had a better sack rate than White or Smith. But he faced a completely different set of rules than the other two. And Jones had Merlin Olsen next to him longer than White had Jerome Brown.

[twoseven]

jamal reynolds at #3.