NFL All-Decade Team Announced

[Truck Lewis]

Sacks and interceptions aren't good indicators of strong defensive play.

But they do get players paid.

(I do like Harrison, the ability to separate the ball from the receiver and intimidate was always my favorite part of his game)

how about wins and rings as indicators....rodney is pretty solid there

[Donoghus]

Sacks and interceptions aren't good indicators of strong defensive play.

But they do get players paid.

(I do like Harrison, the ability to separate the ball from the receiver and intimidate was always my favorite part of his game)

how about wins and rings as indicators....rodney is pretty solid there

Wins and rings do help but its not the end all, be all.  They can only go so far. 

I mean Matt Light as 3 rings and a bountiful of wins but he's not sniffing this list. 

Now Harrison, obviously, can be thrown in the discussion here because the guy made plays, put up some solid numbers, and was an intimidator. One of the best of his position for this decade.

[Donoghus]

To me, rings help "pad the resume".

If you're debating two nearly equal talents and one has a ring or two, more often than not you can pull out the rings to add to the debate.

However, its not enough to overcome superior talent when its pretty obvious.

[Fafnir]

Sacks and interceptions aren't good indicators of strong defensive play.

But they do get players paid.

(I do like Harrison, the ability to separate the ball from the receiver and intimidate was always my favorite part of his game)

how about wins and rings as indicators....rodney is pretty solid there

Brian Scalabrine has a ring.

Rings are overrated, especially in a game like football where there are three distinct phases of the game. Not to mention 11 players on the field for each given side.

[Eja117]

As much as I like Bruschi and Vrabel, they don't belong on an all-decade team.  Rings be [dang]ed.  Porter's the only one that I even raised an eyebrow at (perhaps, Ware too) but I can't justify putting those two ahead of any guys on that list. 

Harrison, you can make a much more compelling case, IMO.

You gotta see through the red & blue tinted glasses.  I know I am. 

Rings be [dang]ed? Pad the stats?  Whaaaatttt?  Ok then. I guess Bill Russell really isn't as good as I thought after all.

Hey Bill.  Those rings of yours. Seriously, just put em away. Let's look at your stats.  Did you average as many points as Boozer? I mean that guy is pretty good. Just cause he doesn't have a ring doesn't mean he's not a great player.

[Eja117]

Vraebel and Brusci better than Urlacher?

 

Those two were good fits for the Pats, and good players but just because you were on a title teams roster doesn't mean you were a great player.

If a few clutch FGs were missed would Brusci and Vraebel been any less of players? No, but they'd have less rings.

Actually they are a lot better. 

Actually being a major starter on a dynasty is the exact definition of greatness. 

Right. But the clutch fgs were made. Because Bruschi and Vrabel helped put Adam in position to make them and have them be the winning difference.

By your guy's logic they should just line everyone up at a combine and see who runs fastest and lifts the most and that guy is the best RB, cause after all, rings don't matter.  They're just an accessory.  I guess that's what everyone plays for...the accessories.

[Donoghus]

As much as I like Bruschi and Vrabel, they don't belong on an all-decade team.  Rings be [dang]ed.  Porter's the only one that I even raised an eyebrow at (perhaps, Ware too) but I can't justify putting those two ahead of any guys on that list. 

Harrison, you can make a much more compelling case, IMO.

You gotta see through the red & blue tinted glasses.  I know I am. 

Rinsg be [dang]ed? Pad the stats?  Whaaaatttt?  Ok then. I guess Bill Russell really isn't as good as I thought after all.

Hey Bill.  Those rings of yours. Seriously, just put em away. Let's look at your stats.  Did you average as many points as Boozer? I mean that guy is pretty good. Just cause he doesn't have a ring doesn't mean he's not a great player.

Rather than attempt twist and manipulate my statements and try to put words in my mouth, go back and look over what I said again.  You clearly didn't pick up on it the first time around.

[Truck Lewis]

Sacks and interceptions aren't good indicators of strong defensive play.

But they do get players paid.

(I do like Harrison, the ability to separate the ball from the receiver and intimidate was always my favorite part of his game)

how about wins and rings as indicators....rodney is pretty solid there

Brian Scalabrine has a ring.

Rings are overrated, especially in a game like football where there are three distinct phases of the game. Not to mention 11 players on the field for each given side.

i get your argument,,but when you are one of your top players, i think the ring should count more.

I consider Brady, Rodney, and Bruschi's rings a little heavier than Fred Coleman, JJ Stokes, and Bethel Johnson's

[Eja117]

As much as I like Bruschi and Vrabel, they don't belong on an all-decade team.  Rings be [dang]ed.  Porter's the only one that I even raised an eyebrow at (perhaps, Ware too) but I can't justify putting those two ahead of any guys on that list. 

Harrison, you can make a much more compelling case, IMO.

You gotta see through the red & blue tinted glasses.  I know I am. 

Rinsg be [dang]ed? Pad the stats?  Whaaaatttt?  Ok then. I guess Bill Russell really isn't as good as I thought after all.

Hey Bill.  Those rings of yours. Seriously, just put em away. Let's look at your stats.  Did you average as many points as Boozer? I mean that guy is pretty good. Just cause he doesn't have a ring doesn't mean he's not a great player.

Rather than attempt twist and manipulate my statements and try to put words in my mouth, go back and look over what I said again.  You clearly didn't pick up on it the first time around.

Nobody put words in your mouth. You specifically said "Rings be [dang]ed". They only "pad the resume".


Then you and fafnir started talking about stats and I combined the implications that you two made (rings are secondry at best) into one post.

If you want to go back and say that I misunderstood you and that rings are the single most important determining factor (like I am saying) then I guess I'll have to admit that I totally misread you.

Actually I somewhat agree with you that maybe one ring can be used as a tie breaker, but not three. If you are a major starter with three rings and in Bruschi's case another two AFC championships (one of which was the only 16-0 regular season in the 16 game era) then it's pretty legit to turn to the Zach Thomases of the world and say "Yeah. You got  lot of catching up to do"

[Eja117]

Sacks and interceptions aren't good indicators of strong defensive play.

But they do get players paid.

(I do like Harrison, the ability to separate the ball from the receiver and intimidate was always my favorite part of his game)

how about wins and rings as indicators....rodney is pretty solid there

Brian Scalabrine has a ring.

Rings are overrated, especially in a game like football where there are three distinct phases of the game. Not to mention 11 players on the field for each given side.

i get your argument,,but when you are one of your top players, i think the ring should count more.

I consider Brady, Rodney, and Bruschi's rings a little heavier than Fred Coleman, JJ Stokes, and Bethel Johnson's

Exactly. And TP.  Nobody is saying Matt Light should be on that list, (but he should probably be on the list if it were a top 5 scenario)

[Eja117]

To some extent one has to believe that rings are very very important or you can believe that you can win one (let alone three) with a bunch of scrubs (or as the critics wanted us to think merely a bunch of somewhat good players and a "system"), which is absurd

[Truck Lewis]

To some extent one has to believe that rings are very very important or you can believe that you can win one (let alone three) with a bunch of scrubs (or as the critics wanted us to think merely a bunch of somewhat good players and a "system"), which is absurd

similar to the people who say QB rings are overated because Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have rings.  Those people tend to leave out that those two played with two of arguably the greatest defenses of all time

[Eja117]

To some extent one has to believe that rings are very very important or you can believe that you can win one (let alone three) with a bunch of scrubs (or as the critics wanted us to think merely a bunch of somewhat good players and a "system"), which is absurd

similar to the people who say QB rings are overated because Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have rings.  Those people tend to leave out that those two played with two of arguably the greatest defenses of all time

Good point. I never thought of that.

I'll give the critics this.

If Dieon Branch had stayed with the Pats and kept putting up huge numbers I probably would have been the loudest bafoon saying he's one of the greatest recievers ever. 

Then he went to Seattle where another good QB threw to him (M Hasselback) and he fell to Earth with a thud.

I suppose the same thing may have happened to Vrabel or Bruschi maybe.

But by the same token if Urlacher or Porter had come here they may have taken a hit in stats and may not have had the mental or emotional capacity to be a champion here.  Look at Adalius Thomas.

So it goes both ways

[Fafnir]

Sacks and interceptions aren't good indicators of strong defensive play.

But they do get players paid.

(I do like Harrison, the ability to separate the ball from the receiver and intimidate was always my favorite part of his game)

how about wins and rings as indicators....rodney is pretty solid there

Brian Scalabrine has a ring.

Rings are overrated, especially in a game like football where there are three distinct phases of the game. Not to mention 11 players on the field for each given side.

i get your argument,,but when you are one of your top players, i think the ring should count more.

I consider Brady, Rodney, and Bruschi's rings a little heavier than Fred Coleman, JJ Stokes, and Bethel Johnson's

I just don't think you can count "rings" in football or baseball, not like you can in Basketball. They're too much of a team sport, even when trying to distinguish among top players.

Like I said, are Brusci/Vraebel/Brady and less of players if Vinaterri misses two of those FGs that kept those SB seasons alive?

[Eja117]

Sacks and interceptions aren't good indicators of strong defensive play.

But they do get players paid.

(I do like Harrison, the ability to separate the ball from the receiver and intimidate was always my favorite part of his game)

how about wins and rings as indicators....rodney is pretty solid there

Brian Scalabrine has a ring.

Rings are overrated, especially in a game like football where there are three distinct phases of the game. Not to mention 11 players on the field for each given side.

i get your argument,,but when you are one of your top players, i think the ring should count more.

I consider Brady, Rodney, and Bruschi's rings a little heavier than Fred Coleman, JJ Stokes, and Bethel Johnson's

I just don't think you can count "rings" in football or baseball, not like you can in Basketball. They're too much of a team sport, even when trying to distinguish among top players.

Like I said, are Brusci/Vraebel/Brady and less of players if Vinaterri misses two of those FGs that kept those SB seasons alive?

Fafnir I totally get what you are saying about this fg thing.  The answer is "sort of", but this is the thing. What of these great players on this list, put their teams in a position to win consistently only to see some fg kicker screw it up? Who was victimized by that?  Maybe the Bills would look a little better if not for Scott Norwood, but I'm not aware of anyone on this list having that kind of problem. I don't remember the Pats "escaping" from other teams very often. They usually went out and earned their rings.