NFL All-Decade Team Announced

[Truck Lewis]

I agree that rings matter the most in basketball,,,,but with your hypo. Are Shaq, Kobe, Tim Duncan, Hakeem, and Drexler worse players if Big Shot Rob doesnt save all of them at different points?

I agree with Eja though about guys like Deon and maybe even Vrabel, but Rodney excelled in San Diego too and brought what made him excel to the Pats and was pretty instrumental in their rings.  Rewatch the Eagles super bowl

[Fafnir]

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.

I'm glad you're willing to put words in our mouths and make up our "logic" for us. Wheh, otherwise we could have a polite discussion! Making strawmen is so much more fun  .

When you're willing to actually debate with us the merits of the players instead of yelling about "rings" and then just making things up like this, send me a PM:

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.

[Fafnir]

I agree that rings matter the most in basketball,,,,but with your hypo. Are Shaq, Kobe, Tim Duncan, Hakeem, and Drexler worse players if Big Shot Rob doesnt save all of them at different points?

I agree with Eja though about guys like Deon and maybe even Vrabel, but Rodney excelled in San Diego too and brought what made him excel to the Pats and was pretty instrumental in their rings.  Rewatch the Eagles super bowl

They aren't worse, that's exactly my point. And in basketball you have a 7 game playoff series, in football the sample size is tiny.

I do think Harrison could have been on the list, but rings aren't one of the reasons I think so. His play over the regular season and playoffs merits it, not his membership on title teams. But he's really the only Patriot who has much of an argument from what I see on the list.

[Eja117]

I agree rings mean less in baseball and even football.

But even then I just can't think of a top 2 player in any league without rings.

Babe - multiple rings

Gretzky and Orr - multiple rings

Football - Montana, LT, and Rice multiple rings

basketball - Russell, Jordan, Kareem - multiple rings

It's hard for me to think of a single greatest player with no rings. Maybe Barry Sanders.  Maybe a Hank Aaron kinda guy. Dick Butkus?

[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.

I'm glad you're willing to put words in our mouths and make up our "logic" for us. Wheh, otherwise we could have a polite discussion! Making strawmen is so much more fun  .

When you're willing to actually debate with us the merits of the players instead of yelling about "rings" and then just making things up like this, send me a PM:

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.

How exactly is quoting directly and then being accused of putting words in mouths polite?

Taking a conclusion to its natural extension is a legit debate tactic.

[Truck Lewis]

I agree that rings matter the most in basketball,,,,but with your hypo. Are Shaq, Kobe, Tim Duncan, Hakeem, and Drexler worse players if Big Shot Rob doesnt save all of them at different points?

I agree with Eja though about guys like Deon and maybe even Vrabel, but Rodney excelled in San Diego too and brought what made him excel to the Pats and was pretty instrumental in their rings.  Rewatch the Eagles super bowl

They aren't worse, that's exactly my point. And in basketball you have a 7 game playoff series, in football the sample size is tiny.

I do think Harrison could have been on the list, but rings aren't one of the reasons I think so. His play over the regular season and playoffs merits it, not his membership on title teams. But he's really the only Patriot who has much of an argument from what I see on the list.

oh i agree that Rodney is the only one with any argument...but i think its a pretty solid combo of his great regular seasons and super bowl success

[Truck Lewis]

I agree rings mean less in baseball and even football.

But even then I just can't think of a top 2 player in any league without rings.

Babe - multiple rings

Gretzky and Orr - multiple rings

Football - Montana, LT, and Rice multiple rings

basketball - Russell, Jordan, Kareem - multiple rings

It's hard for me to think of a single greatest player with no rings. Maybe Barry Sanders.  Maybe a Hank Aaron kinda guy. Dick Butkus?

teddy ballgame

[Fafnir]

I agree that rings matter the most in basketball,,,,but with your hypo. Are Shaq, Kobe, Tim Duncan, Hakeem, and Drexler worse players if Big Shot Rob doesnt save all of them at different points?

I agree with Eja though about guys like Deon and maybe even Vrabel, but Rodney excelled in San Diego too and brought what made him excel to the Pats and was pretty instrumental in their rings.  Rewatch the Eagles super bowl

They aren't worse, that's exactly my point. And in basketball you have a 7 game playoff series, in football the sample size is tiny.

I do think Harrison could have been on the list, but rings aren't one of the reasons I think so. His play over the regular season and playoffs merits it, not his membership on title teams. But he's really the only Patriot who has much of an argument from what I see on the list.

oh i agree that Rodney is the only one with any argument...but i think its a pretty solid combo of his great regular seasons and super bowl success

True, I just think you have to control for the opportunities a player has, and how he performs. Not just the total number of Ws.

[Eja117]

I agree rings mean less in baseball and even football.

But even then I just can't think of a top 2 player in any league without rings.

Babe - multiple rings

Gretzky and Orr - multiple rings

Football - Montana, LT, and Rice multiple rings

basketball - Russell, Jordan, Kareem - multiple rings

It's hard for me to think of a single greatest player with no rings. Maybe Barry Sanders.  Maybe a Hank Aaron kinda guy. Dick Butkus?

teddy ballgame

Good point. Very good.  I tried to think of pitchers but for some reason the first names that popped in my head were Sandy Kofax and Pedro. Then there's Randy and Curt and Mariano and Roger Clemens but they all have rings.

Plus I'm trying to boycot guys like Clemens and Barry

[Fafnir]

Taking a conclusion to its natural extension is a legit debate tactic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

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.

[BASS_THUMPER]

boycott barry?..why?

barry manilow is a great singer/songwriter.....jeez

[Truck Lewis]

I agree that rings matter the most in basketball,,,,but with your hypo. Are Shaq, Kobe, Tim Duncan, Hakeem, and Drexler worse players if Big Shot Rob doesnt save all of them at different points?

I agree with Eja though about guys like Deon and maybe even Vrabel, but Rodney excelled in San Diego too and brought what made him excel to the Pats and was pretty instrumental in their rings.  Rewatch the Eagles super bowl

They aren't worse, that's exactly my point. And in basketball you have a 7 game playoff series, in football the sample size is tiny.

I do think Harrison could have been on the list, but rings aren't one of the reasons I think so. His play over the regular season and playoffs merits it, not his membership on title teams. But he's really the only Patriot who has much of an argument from what I see on the list.

oh i agree that Rodney is the only one with any argument...but i think its a pretty solid combo of his great regular seasons and super bowl success

True, I just think you have to control for the opportunities a player has, and how he performs. Not just the total number of Ws.

Very True...see Marino, Dan and the defenses he played with

See Malone, Karl; Barkley, Charles; Stockton, John: had to play at same time as Michael Jordan

[Fafnir]

I agree that rings matter the most in basketball,,,,but with your hypo. Are Shaq, Kobe, Tim Duncan, Hakeem, and Drexler worse players if Big Shot Rob doesnt save all of them at different points?

I agree with Eja though about guys like Deon and maybe even Vrabel, but Rodney excelled in San Diego too and brought what made him excel to the Pats and was pretty instrumental in their rings.  Rewatch the Eagles super bowl

They aren't worse, that's exactly my point. And in basketball you have a 7 game playoff series, in football the sample size is tiny.

I do think Harrison could have been on the list, but rings aren't one of the reasons I think so. His play over the regular season and playoffs merits it, not his membership on title teams. But he's really the only Patriot who has much of an argument from what I see on the list.

oh i agree that Rodney is the only one with any argument...but i think its a pretty solid combo of his great regular seasons and super bowl success

True, I just think you have to control for the opportunities a player has, and how he performs. Not just the total number of Ws.

Very True...see Marino, Dan and the defenses he played with

See Malone, Karl; Barkley, Charles; Stockton, John: had to play at same time as Michael Jordan

Yup, TP!

I'd like to add watching Urlacher play without his best DT and a safety who knew to you know "cover Reggie Wayne" made me very sad in the 2006 SB. 

[Donoghus]

The point that I was trying to make with the following statement that I thought was pretty clear was...

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.

...rings can only go so far in an argument.  Trent Dilfer has more rings than Dan Marino?  Does that make him a better player in a historical context?  Of course not.  Career statistics and achievements make it clear that Marino was the superior talent.  

If a player has more tackles, sacks, INTs, pro bowl, and all pro teams than another player, its pretty clear that player is a better player than the other guy.  The other guy's rings are not going to be enough to overcome that.  The voters for this all-decade team would seem to be in concurrence with me on this and got it right, IMO.    

Rings are a nice thing to have but I believe in the context of debating two players, it generally only carries much weight when your comparing two relatively equal talents.  If one guy has a ring or two while the other doesnt and all other items being relativley equal, then odds are I'm taking the guy with the rings.