Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Who was better.. Kuechly or Beason in his prime and pre injury?

PanthersUnited

By PanthersUnited,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Growl Veteran

Growl

Posted
Posted

Beason was good but probably a bit overrated.  Luke is great and is probably, if anything, a bit underrated.  Luke is on the way to being a first ballot Hall of Famer while Beason, even if he never got hurt, would have probably maxed out at 3-4 pro bowls.

Well this is revisionist history at it's finest right here.

Jon had already accumulated three Pro-Bowl appearances at the time of his first significant injury. The only year he didnt prior to that point was his rookie season. He was also a 2x All-Pro, and if anything, was criminally underrated.

 

we don't have to rewrite history to give current players their due just because they have our logo on the helmet. We can still applaud their success without downplaying or denying history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoobyPls Mentor

GoobyPls

Posted
Posted

Kuechly is the best LB in the NFL, JB came close to being a top 5 MLB at one point in his career, it's not really close/

WHAT? Beason was widely considered the second best MLB in the NFL when he was healthy, only behind WIllis. Beason didn't have a Star or a Short to help him, Davis was constantly injured when Beason was in his prime. Beason was a one man wrecking crew and was definitely more versatile than Kuechly, Beason made a pro bowl at OLB last time Luke played OLB we was leading the league in missed tackles

Link to comment
Share on other sites
frash.exe Apprentice

frash.exe

Posted
Posted

Beason had about the same range as Keuchly but his ability to diagnose plays wasn't as good, therefore you won't see Keuchly caught out of position as much as Beason was (he was still okay). But furthermore, he didn't have the ability to make the players around him better as well, and I think that's just another aspect of Keuchly's game that makes him better, is that he is a field general. It doesn't show up on the stat sheet but  those pre-snap adjustments can make all the difference in whether you can make a successful defensive stand or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moorgan Enthusiast

Moorgan

Posted
Posted

Beason was a warrior but Keuchly is without a doubt better.

Keuchly vs Morgan is a closer comparison. Keuchly is what Morgan was supposed to be. Maybe a little more too.

This. Morgan is still my favorite player of all time. 25 tackles in the Super Bowl. 25. Tackles. In the Super Bowl. Both Morgan and Beason played for the U so they get extra love from me. But Luke tops both of them. I think Luke has that extra IT factor. I don't really know what it is but he comes out on top for me. But man Morgan was a beast. And no my name is not related to liking Dan Morgan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Khyber53 Grand Master

Khyber53

Posted
Posted

Luke really is one of the greats in that position, and someday they will be talking about him with Singletary, Seau and the other all-time great linebackers. That's not to take away from Beason, who was, in his day, the best MLB playing the game. Beason really was that good. Luke, however, is playing at a level rarely seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Swaggasaurus Community Regular

Swaggasaurus

Posted
Posted

Luke is better. He's faster, he diagnosis the play faster. Beason was a better man coverage guy. Luke's 3rd down zone coverage may be the best ever . Same level of leadership. Beason was a rah rah, we are buddy's on and off the field. Luke is a teacher off the field and a drill Sargent on the field. Both are effective ways to lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...