Van Pelt or Banks for outside linebacker?

by ETVal on Apr 29, 2008 7:25 AM EDT in All-Time Team

I hope you all like the new platform! After last week's disappointment I was sneaky and didn't tell you it was coming today. Read the post below for all the new features, and for how to claim your account. And now, on with the show!

Let's take a quick break from discussing the Giants' draft picks to resume voting for our Big Blue View All-Time Giants Team.

When we left off we had decided to use a 3-4 defense so that both Harry Carson and Sam Huff could be on the team.

We had also decided that there was no need to vote on whether or not Lawrence Taylor belonged. We are simply giving LT one of the linebacker slots.

That means we are down to choosing the other outside linebacker. This is a simple two-horse race -- it's either Brad Van Pelt or Carl Banks. Make a case for anyone else you want, but these are the only two deserving guys.

So, let's look at the them.

The Case for Van Pelt

Before LT came along, Van Pelt was -- quite simply -- the best outside linebacker in the history of the franchise. Unfortunately for Van Pelt, the Giants had only one winning season in the 11 years he was with them.

Van Pelt did play a couple of seasons with Taylor and Carson as part of the historic 'Crunch Bunch.' Ironically, he left the Giants before the 1984 season and was replaced by Banks.

Van Pelt is a five-time Pro Bowler despite the lousy teams he played on and was nominated for the Hall of Fame in 2005. Unfortunately, stats on tackles weren't kept until 1984.

The Case for Banks

Banks was a one-time Pro Bowler who spent the first nine of his 12 NFL seasons with the Giants. His best season was 1986, when he had 113 tackles and 6.5 sacks.

Banks was a member of two Super Bowl championship teams.

To me, this is once again a test of how much credit Big Blue View Nation is willing to give to Giants who played before the Parcells Era.

Poll

Who should be the second outside linebacker on our All-Time Team?

0 recs | Comment 8 comments | Add your comment

Read Related

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Banks vs Van Pelt

I didn’t realize that Banks made only 1 Pro-bowl. He seemed like such a beast when I was a kid. I’m voting for Van Pelt because of his Pro Bowl births, but I’m not sure that Banks wasn’t just as good and didn’t make it to as many because he played opposite LT.

by potroast on Apr 29, 2008 9:15 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Banks

This is a very interesting vote. You could counter that argument by saying it’s possible Van Pelt would have gone to more Pro Bowls if the teams he played on hadn’t stunk.

by ETVal on Apr 29, 2008 9:17 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Pro Bowls

I was originally leaning towards Banks, as he was one of my favorite players as a kid, but the Pro Bowl discrepancy changed my mind. That and I feel like the pre-Parcells guys are getting screwed. It’s not that we haven’t had great players since the mid-80’s, but we had a ton of hall of famers back in the 40’s through 60’s that were equally deserving. It’d be like having an all-time Yankees squad that took Reggie Jackson and Bernie over Mantle and DiMaggio (ok, maybe not that egregious, maybe more like taking Posada over Berra or Dickey, but doing it at every position)

by cjmulrain on Apr 29, 2008 9:27 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs

i think that

van pelt’s play elevated his teammates whereas banks overall performance looked better because of the stars he had around him. i know banks is the more well-known player (at least to my generation of giants fans) but van pelt got my vote.

by SBakerTheTouchdownMaker on Apr 29, 2008 9:51 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs

I think it's a close call, but I'm surprised that the vote itself is.

I figured Banks would pull away because of the demographics of the BBVers. I’m going for Van Pelt, not just because of the Pro Bowls, but because he was the very best Giants player of the seventies. He also had a ton of interceptions and was clearly superior to Banks there. They were about even otherwise, except that Van Pelt had a much bigger rep than Banks both in college (how many DBs have won the Maxwell Trophy?) and the pros. As SB says, the younger fans know Banks much better. I could live with a Banks pick much easier than the choice of Marshall over Robustelli (and I’ve already learned to live with that.)

by george cronin on Apr 29, 2008 10:50 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Broke my heart

to vote against Banks. If Van Pelt were in his prime on the 80’s teams instead of being part of 20 years of lousy football , he would have been considered as highly as anyone not named LT.

by big blue wrecking crew on Apr 29, 2008 4:58 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

love them both

i think SB is right. Banks got some recognition because of what he was a part of, a monster D. Van Pelt had to deal with some bad offenses. I think his first 3 seasons 73-75? they won 9 games and did not have a winning record until the Ray Perkins Years of 1981.

Van Pelt made the pro Bowl almost every year any way. I am not sure Van Pelt made everyone that much better, but given that Scott Bruner and Joe Pisarcak consistently threw 20+ interceptions in a season (or so it seemed), they were lucky to have any wins.

After thinking about those years (sitting in the upper deck with garbage bags around my legs), you guys changed my initial vote for Banks. 1 more for Van Pelt

by losangelesmets on Apr 30, 2008 1:21 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs