Wow. Tedy Bruschi just castrated Ochocinco

[angryguy77]

Then you'd try to apply this same logic to Peyton Manning. He'd go out and get beat like 48-3 in the snow at Foxboro and people would say he's the best QB. And then you'd be like "Wait a minute. Did he win? No. Does Brady have the better WRs over Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne? No. Does he have a better TE than Dallas Clark? No. Does he have as many Pro Bowl offensive linemen? no. Does he have a Pro Bowl RB? No. Does he have a better DE than Dwight Freeney? No. So how is Peyton better? Well he threw for more TDs."

  I don't really disagree with your point, but I don't think it's the apples to apples comparison that you do. It's true that Manning had more weapons on offense, but you'd have to wonder whether Brady would have the same success playing against the Pats defense and coaches that he had playing against the Colts defense and coaches. I'd guess he's be generally less successful under those circumstances.

Well this brings us to a highly philosophical point about apples. I'd say depending on how you use the apples if the apples from one orchard go into a pie that wins all the awards those are better apples than the ones that go to the expensive supper market and don't get eaten even if they had better access to good pesticide and everything, but now we're talking apples and oranges.

  So then what if the pie doesn't win awards but sickens the judges? Does the uneaten apple become better than the one that goes in a pie that tastes like vinegar and worms? Does that mean that whether the uneaten apple's better or worse than other apples is unrelated to how good it tastes? Does it mean that the apple in the pie is better or worse regardless of how good it tastes because it's in a pie with other ingredients that are either tasty or rancid?

Well is the uneaten apple from a farm that consistently wins awards? Does an uneaten apple in a forest still taste bad if nobody tastes it? Did it get on the cover of an apple video game? Did he come from an award winning batch? If every batch has a bad apple how do we know it's him only because he wasn't in a pie that sickened the judges?

More importantly, if that apple in the forest falls and no one hears it, does it still make a sound?

[BballTim]

I don't see what you are trying to say here eja.

By your theory Luc Longley, who started for three NBA championship teams, is a better center than dwight Howard, patrick Ewing, Willis Reed, Hakeem Olajawon, EWilt Chamberlain and a host of other all-time greats and Hall of Fame centers because he has more rings than they do and was a starting center on three championship teams.

Finally. Someone who understands me!  Because Tedy Bruschi was very very Luc Longleyish.  

And Mike Vrabel was kinda Ron Harper. He wasn't the one of the best of his era or anything. Who had the video game covers, but no rings or one whole ring at that time? Shawnee Merriman. Yep. Shawnee. He was John Stockton and Vrabel was Ron Harper.

Somehow this team of Harpers and Luc Longleys and Toni Kukoces always managed to kick the wazoo of Peyton Manning when nobody else could, but hey the sum is greater than the parts.  

  I don't think it's really a team *of* Harpers and Luc Longleys and Toni Kukoces, but a team *with* Harpers and Luc Longleys and Toni Kukoces. You're elevating the role players to the level of the stars of the teams, and comparing players based on how good their teammates were.

and somehow this team with no Michael Jordans always managed to shut out and/or dominate the dream team Indy Colts and the Greatest Show on Turf, with no help other than SuperMan Brady, a Jedi Council coaching staff and a little spirit and help from the weather. It was a major miracle that lasted about 7 years or so.  

Pop quiz. In the early 2000s who do you think gave more nightmares to Peyton Manning? Ray Lewis or Tedy?  Dwight Freeney or Vrabel?  How about McGinnest?

It's a good thing that the Harpers and whatnot didn't stop the Pats from having the top ranked defense in 2003. Amazing really.

  What's really amazing is that you're ignoring that the Pats had players like Seymour, Law, Harrison and McGinest.

Yeah. And these guys were always getting their due. They were always getting the accolades that non winners like Urlacher were getting. 

  Calling players non winners would mean something if people reading it agreed that players are largely defined by their teammates. That's why KG and Paul were career non winners, and still would be if not for the trades Danny made.

If Law was so good they could throw to the other side. Asante.  They could run to the other side. There's Ty Warren and Mike Vrabel. Try to go up the middle past Ted Washington and Teddy.

  Yawn. I guess all five Celts are equally responsible for our defense?

Who were the guys who weren't getting the job done and needed to be propped up? 

  What's important isn't that if Law's good, they can just throw to the other side. What matters is that they can have more help in other spots because he's better on his own. Just like Seymour occupies extra attention on the line, freeing up the other linemen to make plays. If you couldn't tell that Seymour was better at his position than Bruschi then I guess I see your point. I just disagree with your analysis.

[BballTim]

Then you'd try to apply this same logic to Peyton Manning. He'd go out and get beat like 48-3 in the snow at Foxboro and people would say he's the best QB. And then you'd be like "Wait a minute. Did he win? No. Does Brady have the better WRs over Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne? No. Does he have a better TE than Dallas Clark? No. Does he have as many Pro Bowl offensive linemen? no. Does he have a Pro Bowl RB? No. Does he have a better DE than Dwight Freeney? No. So how is Peyton better? Well he threw for more TDs."

  I don't really disagree with your point, but I don't think it's the apples to apples comparison that you do. It's true that Manning had more weapons on offense, but you'd have to wonder whether Brady would have the same success playing against the Pats defense and coaches that he had playing against the Colts defense and coaches. I'd guess he's be generally less successful under those circumstances.

Well this brings us to a highly philosophical point about apples. I'd say depending on how you use the apples if the apples from one orchard go into a pie that wins all the awards those are better apples than the ones that go to the expensive supper market and don't get eaten even if they had better access to good pesticide and everything, but now we're talking apples and oranges.

  So then what if the pie doesn't win awards but sickens the judges? Does the uneaten apple become better than the one that goes in a pie that tastes like vinegar and worms? Does that mean that whether the uneaten apple's better or worse than other apples is unrelated to how good it tastes? Does it mean that the apple in the pie is better or worse regardless of how good it tastes because it's in a pie with other ingredients that are either tasty or rancid?

Well is the uneaten apple from a farm that consistently wins awards? Does an uneaten apple in a forest still taste bad if nobody tastes it? Did it get on the cover of an apple video game? Did he come from an award winning batch? If every batch has a bad apple how do we know it's him only because he wasn't in a pie that sickened the judges?

More importantly, if that apple in the forest falls and no one hears it, does it still make a sound?

  You're just muddying the waters. If an apple falls in the forest and someone *does* hear it, does the apple make a sound?

[Eja117]

I don't see what you are trying to say here eja.

By your theory Luc Longley, who started for three NBA championship teams, is a better center than dwight Howard, patrick Ewing, Willis Reed, Hakeem Olajawon, EWilt Chamberlain and a host of other all-time greats and Hall of Fame centers because he has more rings than they do and was a starting center on three championship teams.

Finally. Someone who understands me!  Because Tedy Bruschi was very very Luc Longleyish.  

And Mike Vrabel was kinda Ron Harper. He wasn't the one of the best of his era or anything. Who had the video game covers, but no rings or one whole ring at that time? Shawnee Merriman. Yep. Shawnee. He was John Stockton and Vrabel was Ron Harper.

Somehow this team of Harpers and Luc Longleys and Toni Kukoces always managed to kick the wazoo of Peyton Manning when nobody else could, but hey the sum is greater than the parts.  

  I don't think it's really a team *of* Harpers and Luc Longleys and Toni Kukoces, but a team *with* Harpers and Luc Longleys and Toni Kukoces. You're elevating the role players to the level of the stars of the teams, and comparing players based on how good their teammates were.

and somehow this team with no Michael Jordans always managed to shut out and/or dominate the dream team Indy Colts and the Greatest Show on Turf, with no help other than SuperMan Brady, a Jedi Council coaching staff and a little spirit and help from the weather. It was a major miracle that lasted about 7 years or so.  

Pop quiz. In the early 2000s who do you think gave more nightmares to Peyton Manning? Ray Lewis or Tedy?  Dwight Freeney or Vrabel?  How about McGinnest?

It's a good thing that the Harpers and whatnot didn't stop the Pats from having the top ranked defense in 2003. Amazing really.

  What's really amazing is that you're ignoring that the Pats had players like Seymour, Law, Harrison and McGinest.

Yeah. And these guys were always getting their due. They were always getting the accolades that non winners like Urlacher were getting. 

  Calling players non winners would mean something if people reading it agreed that players are largely defined by their teammates. That's why KG and Paul were career non winners, and still would be if not for the trades Danny made.

If Law was so good they could throw to the other side. Asante.  They could run to the other side. There's Ty Warren and Mike Vrabel. Try to go up the middle past Ted Washington and Teddy.

  Yawn. I guess all five Celts are equally responsible for our defense?

Who were the guys who weren't getting the job done and needed to be propped up? 

  What's important isn't that if Law's good, they can just throw to the other side. What matters is that they can have more help in other spots because he's better on his own. Just like Seymour occupies extra attention on the line, freeing up the other linemen to make plays. If you couldn't tell that Seymour was better at his position than Bruschi then I guess I see your point. I just disagree with your analysis.

If you want to say that Seymore and Law were so good that they should have been getting all the attention when Urlacher, Ray Lewis, and the Colts were (remember when Bob Sanders got DPOY in 2007? Did any Pats ever get that?) then I'm fine with that.

I just want to know who the scrubs were on defense who were blanking Peyton Manning when no other team could do it. Who were the scrubs on that #1 defense that won 3 rings and got within a whisker of another? 

Are you telling me that you could trade a Patriots starter at that time to any other defense in the league and the other defense doesn't get better?

Or maybe we have to end this ridiculous notion that Peyton and Brady are sorta equals since Brady was beating all the defenses in the league and had all these scrub teammates and Peyton just couldn't beat them.

It's one or the other.

[BballTim]

I don't see what you are trying to say here eja.

By your theory Luc Longley, who started for three NBA championship teams, is a better center than dwight Howard, patrick Ewing, Willis Reed, Hakeem Olajawon, EWilt Chamberlain and a host of other all-time greats and Hall of Fame centers because he has more rings than they do and was a starting center on three championship teams.

Finally. Someone who understands me!  Because Tedy Bruschi was very very Luc Longleyish.  

And Mike Vrabel was kinda Ron Harper. He wasn't the one of the best of his era or anything. Who had the video game covers, but no rings or one whole ring at that time? Shawnee Merriman. Yep. Shawnee. He was John Stockton and Vrabel was Ron Harper.

Somehow this team of Harpers and Luc Longleys and Toni Kukoces always managed to kick the wazoo of Peyton Manning when nobody else could, but hey the sum is greater than the parts.  

  I don't think it's really a team *of* Harpers and Luc Longleys and Toni Kukoces, but a team *with* Harpers and Luc Longleys and Toni Kukoces. You're elevating the role players to the level of the stars of the teams, and comparing players based on how good their teammates were.

and somehow this team with no Michael Jordans always managed to shut out and/or dominate the dream team Indy Colts and the Greatest Show on Turf, with no help other than SuperMan Brady, a Jedi Council coaching staff and a little spirit and help from the weather. It was a major miracle that lasted about 7 years or so.  

Pop quiz. In the early 2000s who do you think gave more nightmares to Peyton Manning? Ray Lewis or Tedy?  Dwight Freeney or Vrabel?  How about McGinnest?

It's a good thing that the Harpers and whatnot didn't stop the Pats from having the top ranked defense in 2003. Amazing really.

  What's really amazing is that you're ignoring that the Pats had players like Seymour, Law, Harrison and McGinest.

Yeah. And these guys were always getting their due. They were always getting the accolades that non winners like Urlacher were getting. 

  Calling players non winners would mean something if people reading it agreed that players are largely defined by their teammates. That's why KG and Paul were career non winners, and still would be if not for the trades Danny made.

If Law was so good they could throw to the other side. Asante.  They could run to the other side. There's Ty Warren and Mike Vrabel. Try to go up the middle past Ted Washington and Teddy.

  Yawn. I guess all five Celts are equally responsible for our defense?

Who were the guys who weren't getting the job done and needed to be propped up? 

  What's important isn't that if Law's good, they can just throw to the other side. What matters is that they can have more help in other spots because he's better on his own. Just like Seymour occupies extra attention on the line, freeing up the other linemen to make plays. If you couldn't tell that Seymour was better at his position than Bruschi then I guess I see your point. I just disagree with your analysis.

If you want to say that Seymore and Law were so good that they should have been getting all the attention when Urlacher, Ray Lewis, and the Colts were (remember when Bob Sanders got DPOY in 2007? Did any Pats ever get that?) then I'm fine with that.

  Seymour was widely known as one of the best if not the best linemen in the league. You're griping about, what, jersey sales and the like? You don't think that Seymour was recognized for being a great player?

I just want to know who the scrubs were on defense who were blanking Peyton Manning when no other team could do it. Who were the scrubs on that #1 defense that won 3 rings and got within a whisker of another? 

  Who said anything about scrubs? The thing is, believe it or not, there's a lot of room between great and scrubs, and players like Bruschi aren't in the same spot on the spectrum as players like Seymour.

Are you telling me that you could trade a Patriots starter at that time to any other defense in the league and the other defense doesn't get better?

  You could trade a lot of the players to teams with top players at that player's spot and worsen the other team's defense, obviously. Do you really think the best defensive team has the best defender in the league at every spot?

Or maybe we have to end this ridiculous notion that Peyton and Brady are sorta equals since Brady was beating all the defenses in the league and had all these scrub teammates and Peyton just couldn't beat them.

It's one or the other.

  Or it's other things that you refuse to believe. Like possibly the Pats had a great game plan against Manning. Again, it's back to your apples to oranges comparison. Manning beats up every team but struggles against the Pats. Brady beats up every team but never plays the Pats defense. How do you know that Brady wouldn't have also struggled against the Pats defense? How do you know that Manning wouldn't have won 4-5 Super Bowls with the Pats defense on his team?

[Eja117]

In response to your first question....no. I don't think Seymour was properly recognized. Case in point.  Who gets into the Hall of Fame first? Seymour or Urlacher? That's a problem.

I agree Seymour and Bruschi aren't in the same spectrum. Seymour got traded for draft picks.

No. I don't think the best defensive team has the best defensive player at each spot. But I generally think dynasties did.  The Steelers of the 70s got great Hall of Fame accolades they had earned. The Pats will be treated with a double standard. They were while they were playing. They will be in retirement.

There may have been some great game planning. Where did the great game planning go once the players from that dynasty got old?  Manning didn't have a bad defense. But he did throw lots of interceptions in big games. Sometimes against the Pats. Sometimes the Saints. Sometimes the Steelers. Perhaps they all just game planned very well.

[BASS_THUMPER]

thought only doctors could do that

[BballTim]

In response to your first question....no. I don't think Seymour was properly recognized. Case in point.  Who gets into the Hall of Fame first? Seymour or Urlacher? That's a problem.

  Who cares whether he gets into the HOF before Urlacher? Why is that a problem?

I agree Seymour and Bruschi aren't in the same spectrum. Seymour got traded for draft picks.

  And Seattle traded Ray Allen and kept Nick Collison. Does that somehow make Collison the better of the two players? This is somewhat ridiculous. Again, if you weren't able to see that Seymour was a better player than Bruschi then I guess that explains your stance.

No. I don't think the best defensive team has the best defensive player at each spot. But I generally think dynasties did.  The Steelers of the 70s got great Hall of Fame accolades they had earned. The Pats will be treated with a double standard. They were while they were playing. They will be in retirement.

  Five of those Steelers defenders made the HOF, not all of them. And that's a team that was known for their defense. But (almost) everyone who watched the Steelers knew that some of their defenders were better than others.

  And what of all of the other great teams? Are all of their defenders headed for the HOF?

[Eja117]

In response to your first question....no. I don't think Seymour was properly recognized. Case in point.  Who gets into the Hall of Fame first? Seymour or Urlacher? That's a problem.

  Who cares whether he gets into the HOF before Urlacher? Why is that a problem?

I agree Seymour and Bruschi aren't in the same spectrum. Seymour got traded for draft picks.

  And Seattle traded Ray Allen and kept Nick Collison. Does that somehow make Collison the better of the two players? This is somewhat ridiculous. Again, if you weren't able to see that Seymour was a better player than Bruschi then I guess that explains your stance.

No. I don't think the best defensive team has the best defensive player at each spot. But I generally think dynasties did.  The Steelers of the 70s got great Hall of Fame accolades they had earned. The Pats will be treated with a double standard. They were while they were playing. They will be in retirement.

  Five of those Steelers defenders made the HOF, not all of them. And that's a team that was known for their defense. But (almost) everyone who watched the Steelers knew that some of their defenders were better than others.

  And what of all of the other great teams? Are all of their defenders headed for the HOF?

It's a problem because usually the better player gets in first.

When Seymour left it left a huge hole in the line. When Bruschi left it left a huge hole in the llb corps. When Vrabel left if left a huge hole.

What other great teams? There aren't that many dynasties. Yes. I would say most dynasties that had a #1 defense should probably get a lot of their players into the Hall over guys that didn't win.  The Cowboys right now are slowly getting their guys in.

[BballTim]

In response to your first question....no. I don't think Seymour was properly recognized. Case in point.  Who gets into the Hall of Fame first? Seymour or Urlacher? That's a problem.

  Who cares whether he gets into the HOF before Urlacher? Why is that a problem?

I agree Seymour and Bruschi aren't in the same spectrum. Seymour got traded for draft picks.

  And Seattle traded Ray Allen and kept Nick Collison. Does that somehow make Collison the better of the two players? This is somewhat ridiculous. Again, if you weren't able to see that Seymour was a better player than Bruschi then I guess that explains your stance.

No. I don't think the best defensive team has the best defensive player at each spot. But I generally think dynasties did.  The Steelers of the 70s got great Hall of Fame accolades they had earned. The Pats will be treated with a double standard. They were while they were playing. They will be in retirement.

  Five of those Steelers defenders made the HOF, not all of them. And that's a team that was known for their defense. But (almost) everyone who watched the Steelers knew that some of their defenders were better than others.

  And what of all of the other great teams? Are all of their defenders headed for the HOF?

It's a problem because usually the better player gets in first.

  First of all, it's debatable that the better players get in first. Secondly, it's conceivable that Urlacher *was* the better player. I mean, you can't tell whether or not whether Seymour was better than Bruschi. There's little doubt that Urlacher was better than Brucschi.

When Seymour left it left a huge hole in the line. When Bruschi left it left a huge hole in the llb corps. When Vrabel left if left a huge hole.

  KG was injured in the 2009 playoffs and it left a huge hole. Perk wasn't around last year and it left a huge hole. What's your point.

  Bruschi and Seymour were both members of a good defense. Neither may have been adequately replaced. Seymour was traded. All of this is true. None of it shows that Bruschi was as good (or, as you're trying to imply, better).

What other great teams? There aren't that many dynasties. Yes. I would say most dynasties that had a #1 defense should probably get a lot of their players into the Hall over guys that didn't win.  The Cowboys right now are slowly getting their guys in.

  The Steelers had one of the best known defenses of all time (for a reason). They had 5 or so members of that defense deservedly enter the Hall.

  And the only two great teams in the history of the league were the Steelers and the Pats? Really?

[Finkelskyhook]

The one thing that all of the players that have been argued about in this thread have in common is that they are / were about their team, winning, and championships.

Johnson is all about himself.

Johnson isn't close to being even in Luc Longley's area code as far as being a winner is concerned. 

[StartOrien]

The one thing that all of the players that have been argued about in this thread have in common is that they are / were about their team, winning, and championships.

Johnson is all about himself.

Johnson isn't close to being even in Luc Longley's area code as far as being a winner is concerned. 

He's all about himself because he tweeted that he was in awe of the Patriots offense?

[BballTim]

The one thing that all of the players that have been argued about in this thread have in common is that they are / were about their team, winning, and championships.

Johnson is all about himself.

Johnson isn't close to being even in Luc Longley's area code as far as being a winner is concerned. 

  Luc Longley was a run of the mill player who was lucky enough to play on the same team as MJ/Pippen and others. Swithing him with other mediocre bigs wouldn't kill the Bulls or greatly elevate his new team. Not saying he didn't do things that helped his team win, just that those were the same things a player with his skills had to do to stay in the league.

[cman88]

The one thing that all of the players that have been argued about in this thread have in common is that they are / were about their team, winning, and championships.

Johnson is all about himself.

Johnson isn't close to being even in Luc Longley's area code as far as being a winner is concerned. 

maybe he was all about himself on the bengals, but he doesnt seem to be over here...i havent once heard him complain about not getting touches in the last 2 games...and according to the coaches he's been doign everything thats been asked of him

Looking at last game, he was able to get separation from his defenders and run screens...so when he does get more comfortable in the no-huddle offense, he will be a deadly threat..

he's not coming in to be the next randy moss, hes coming in to replace brandon tate's role last year...and he's got a bigger talent level than tate

[Finkelskyhook]

The one thing that all of the players that have been argued about in this thread have in common is that they are / were about their team, winning, and championships.

Johnson is all about himself.

Johnson isn't close to being even in Luc Longley's area code as far as being a winner is concerned. 

He's all about himself because he tweeted that he was in awe of the Patriots offense?

Yes.  Johnson should just shut up for once, stop tweeting, and learn the system.  He isn't in Cincinnati anymore, SO.  Nobody cares what he thinks.  Results are what matters.  That's Bruschi's point.