The only 2 people on that list above that has a chance to be in the top 5 are Ray Lewis and Donnie Edwards.
Thurman??? gimmie a break. The guy had 1 good preseason game when he played almost the entire game against 2nd and 3rd stringers and everyone wants to anoint him as the second coming of Ray Lewis. I can't wait until he goes 3-1-0 in the next game.
Vilma is still too raw and gets out of position easily.
Barnett is overrated.
And Peterson has no shot.
Apologies for the length of the post to follow, but I think it's worth the thought.I'll readily admit that there is every reason to suspect Urlacher, Bulluck, and Fletcher, and Harrison among a couple of others to be near the top of this list. I'm hungry for a little more substance to go with the rest of your comments, though.
Answering the question requires projecting who you think has a shot of reaching 100 plus solo tackles. Only four guys did last year. Another eight got more than 90.
That list includes, realistically, in my mind, about 10-12 guys.
My list (I ordered them 1-5, but the order certainly doesn't matter)
Ray Lewis - I think we both agree that no discussion is warranted here. The only way he doesn't top this list is if he plays less than 14 games.
Jonathan Vilma - 75 tackles in 16 games, with nearly double the production per game over the last 10 games versus the first six (tackles only). He averaged 5.3 per game the last 10. Project that over a full season and you've got 85 solos. I see no reason he can't improve by a tackle a game and reach 100 solos. If you think Vilma is way overrated and won't be able to improve any of his skills with some experience and teaching, then there's probably no way of arguing this. But all scouting reports I've seen are favorable. I have no idea what "raw" means, but I assume it means the same as "plays out of position too much". If that's the case, there's absolutely nothing in his history to suggest Vilma is not coachable. To say he's got no chance at reaching 100 solos and the top 5 on the list is crazy.
Donnie Edwards - Again, although he's not getting any younger, there's no reason to argue against him as a candidate on the list.
Odell Thurman - Maybe you're confusing me with somebody else. I've never compared him to Ray Lewis, although many smart folks, Marvin Lewis included, have compared some of his qualities to Ray Lewis. Obviously, his 7 tackles against the Pats in a watered down preseason game mean nothing. Observing his play does. And, yes, I'm almost certainly overreaching here, but mostly to make a point. The mish-mash of Bengal MLB last year totaled 82 tackles, figured very conservatively, and 85% of this was contributed by two rookies. One, Caleb Miller, is just not very good. Two, Landon Johnson, was learning and playing out of position. In my mind, there's no question that Odell Thurman is a better player than that three headed monster. There's also no question that barring injury, Odell Thurman gets all the snaps at MLB. While he's certainly the most questionable of the six I listed, he's got a shot. I'm happy to take my lumps at season's end if I'm way off.
Mike Peterson - I know I'm wasting my time with all this analysis, but your statement that Peterson has no shot to make this list is crazy. Improved 20 solos to 93 tackles from 03-04 as he learned the MLB position, putting him #10 on this list already, and all of 7 tackles out of the top five.
Nick Barnett - See Peterson, Mike. Overrated as an NFL MLB. Agreed. Overrated as a fantasy MLB or tackle guy. No way. 92 tackles last year. Nobody else on that team will be around to make tackles. Who cares if the tackles come five yards downfield. They're still tackles.
Brian Urlacher - Probably belongs on the list on talent alone. But I'm a little leery of the 30 tackle dropoff between 02 and 03 to 87 solos, and Briggs will take some of the tackles.
London Fletcher - Case to be made here as well. But I see no room for improvement over his 98/98/94 tackle numbers over the last three years. What's changed for him?
Keith Bulluck - Almost certainly belongs on the list.
But, what's the point of regurging the top guys? It's a discussion board after all. Sure, Bulluck should have been in the my top 6. After Lewis and Edwards, you can make an argument for any of 10-12 guys. But I think dismissing Thurman, Vilma, Peterson, and Barnett out of hand, especially with little argument in some cases, is a mistake and misleads some of the folks looking for ideas on the board.
(And, of course, I had to defend myself just a bit...)