Wow. Tedy Bruschi just castrated Ochocinco

[Eja117]

You say Bruschi and Seymore played on a great defense. Yup. They were the ones making it great. How many people will ever say that about Urlacher?

A lot?

Oh yes. Urlacher led many legendary defenses. Those vaunted Bears defenses were a terror of their time.

The Urlacher Bears have twice led the NFL in points allowed.  The Pats have led the league once, and have been second twice.

I wouldn't necessarily call the Pats a "legendary" defense, just a very good one.  The thing they've had that has separated them from Urlacher's Bears is an excellent (and at times legendary) offense.  Since 2001, the Pats have had a top-ten offense in all but one season, and have led the league in scoring twice.  Urlacher's teams have only finished in the top ten in offense once, finishing 21st or worst seven times.

Now, I know that in your world, Urlacher should have been an Iron Man, playing QB, RB, OL, kicker, punter, returner, and linebacker to lead his team to multiple titles.  For the rest of us, it seems fair to say that Urlacher was handicapped by a terrible offense.  The one (and only) year he was handed a top ten offense, he ended up in the Super Bowl.

I would certainly agree with this.  

Urlacher is a HOF'er and Bruschi is not.

I think Urlacher led a couple elite defenses, but I also think he led alot of mediocre defenses that were deemsed to be elite just due to how bad their offense was.

 A mediorce defense looked amazing next to the garbage they were throwing out there and calling an offense for many years

  Bad offenses make defenses look worse, not better. First of all the defense usually has to stay out on the field longer because the offense can't control the ball, and the opposing offense generally starts with better field position, so theyre more likely to score.

  Bad offenses make *opposing* defenses look great, but that's another story.

I agree with this generally. Maybe ok offenses make it so a defense is remembered more. Maybe. Cases in point would be Bucs and Ravens.

  You're talking about the great NE defenses and claiming that the Bucs and Ravens defenses were overrated? Those teams both gave up fewer points a game than those Pats defenses.

Yes. They put on quite a display winning their one whole rings beating up on the Giants and Raiders.

[BballTim]

You say Bruschi and Seymore played on a great defense. Yup. They were the ones making it great. How many people will ever say that about Urlacher?

A lot?

Oh yes. Urlacher led many legendary defenses. Those vaunted Bears defenses were a terror of their time.

The Urlacher Bears have twice led the NFL in points allowed.  The Pats have led the league once, and have been second twice.

I wouldn't necessarily call the Pats a "legendary" defense, just a very good one.  The thing they've had that has separated them from Urlacher's Bears is an excellent (and at times legendary) offense.  Since 2001, the Pats have had a top-ten offense in all but one season, and have led the league in scoring twice.  Urlacher's teams have only finished in the top ten in offense once, finishing 21st or worst seven times.

Now, I know that in your world, Urlacher should have been an Iron Man, playing QB, RB, OL, kicker, punter, returner, and linebacker to lead his team to multiple titles.  For the rest of us, it seems fair to say that Urlacher was handicapped by a terrible offense.  The one (and only) year he was handed a top ten offense, he ended up in the Super Bowl.

I would certainly agree with this.  

Urlacher is a HOF'er and Bruschi is not.

I think Urlacher led a couple elite defenses, but I also think he led alot of mediocre defenses that were deemsed to be elite just due to how bad their offense was.

 A mediorce defense looked amazing next to the garbage they were throwing out there and calling an offense for many years

  Bad offenses make defenses look worse, not better. First of all the defense usually has to stay out on the field longer because the offense can't control the ball, and the opposing offense generally starts with better field position, so theyre more likely to score.

  Bad offenses make *opposing* defenses look great, but that's another story.

I agree with this generally. Maybe ok offenses make it so a defense is remembered more. Maybe. Cases in point would be Bucs and Ravens.

  You're talking about the great NE defenses and claiming that the Bucs and Ravens defenses were overrated? Those teams both gave up fewer points a game than those Pats defenses.

Yes. They put on quite a display winning their one whole rings beating up on the Giants and Raiders.

  You really don't understand things like offense (and special teams) having a large impact on how many titles a good defense wins, or  how you can't just compare overall team defenses to compare individual players on different teams, do you?

  Do you think the same things about basketball? That, when KG was in Minny, every pf on teams that had better defenses than Minny was a better defender than KG? Every center on teams with a better defense than the Magic is a better defender than DH?