Earl Thomas best defensive Seahawks player ever?

[pmedic920]

Quite the contrary, having played the position himself, and where he is with regards to the HOF, I believe his experience and trained eye, makes him more qualified than the guy that wrote the article.

I won't dispute that in anyway.
I'm only trying to say that his point of view is different on both players.
There are many factors that come into play, heck, the rules on what a DB can/can't do are even different in today's game.
I've already said I don't discount his opinion of KE.
Bottom line for me on this is, I don't think we know how great or not ETIII is, because the body of his work is incomplete.
I think ETIII adds intangibles that have not fully been recognized. If he plays several more years, there's no telling what he may or may not accomplish.

Lott is one of the greats, he knows what he's talking about, you get zero argument from me on that aspect.

 

[razor150]

^^^^^

It was directed at the "Lott"'sound bite on Kenny E.

Lott can't comment on ETIII from a players standpoint.

I think using his opinion of KE is kinda useless when we are talking about the possibility of ETIII being the best ever defensive Seahawk.
I don't discount his opinion of KE but he can't comment on both players.
That's all.

Quite the contrary, having played the position himself, and where he is with regards to the HOF, I believe his experience and trained eye, makes him more qualified than the guy that wrote the article.

Plus the idea that Lott can't comment on Thomas but can on Easley is kind of strange. Lott and Easley never played head to head. Sure their teams played against one another, but isn't like they were on the field at the same time. Lott's opinion of Easley comes in the same way his opinion for Chancellor and Thomas, from watching their play on the field.

 

[pmedic920]

^^^^^

It was directed at the "Lott"'sound bite on Kenny E.

Lott can't comment on ETIII from a players standpoint.

I think using his opinion of KE is kinda useless when we are talking about the possibility of ETIII being the best ever defensive Seahawk.
I don't discount his opinion of KE but he can't comment on both players.
That's all.

Quite the contrary, having played the position himself, and where he is with regards to the HOF, I believe his experience and trained eye, makes him more qualified than the guy that wrote the article.

Plus the idea that Lott can't comment on Thomas but can on Easley is kind of strange. Lott and Easley never played head to head. Sure their teams played against one another, but isn't like they were on the field at the same time. Lott's opinion of Easley comes in the same way his opinion for Chancellor and Thomas, from watching their play on the field.

Admittedly, the difference isn't huge but I see a difference.
I've tried to explain my opinion with little success.
I liken it to the "top 100" list being voted on by current players, not ex-players or analysts.
I see his opinion of KE as being from a current players standpoint, his view on ETIII as being from an ex-player/analyst. Subtle difference but one still the same.
The whole point of this for me is, I'm not using Lott's opinion to base mine on.
I love/loved KE, he's listed as my fav on my profile.
I won't call ETIII the greatest YET, because IMHO we don't know yet.
I think it's silly that so many posts in this thread are about my opinion of Lott's opinion.
My sincere apologies to the OP, won't be commenting further.

 

[IndyHawk]

Easley is at least a level above ET and I have watched both.The fact Lott says Easley was the best safety ever speaks for itself

 

[seabowl]

I think it's Tez and IMO it's not even close. He transformed that D and in 1992 he had one of the best seasons ever for a defensive player regardless of the team. The guy was dominant at a position that it's hard to be dominant at and get noticed. It's Tez and then there's the rest. Again IMO.