Wow. Tedy Bruschi just castrated Ochocinco

[Roy H.]

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.

While I understand your point, which of these three is the worst:

1) Johnson praising a teammate on twitter;

2) Brady encouraging fans to get "lube up" when they come to the stadium;

3) Bruschi attacking Johnson?

I think the Johnson tweet should be a non-issue.  I agree his focus needs to be on football, but expressing a two-second thought in praise of your new QB isn't in any way offensive to me.

[nickagneta]

The most offensive thing in this thread has been to the memory of some of the greatest linebackers of all time when Bruschi was called a top ten LB of all time.

I could care less about what Ochocinco said. It demonstrates a lack of experience with the "Patriot Way" but that's about it.

Bruschi went off because, well, that's what ex-players that are currently sports commentators do when they see stuff that players do that is completely the opposite of what they would do.

[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.

  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?

Urlacher was clearly better?  In one season he was lost for half the season. The team finished two games worse. In a different season he missed the whole year. The team finished two games worse.
The year after Bruschi retired to spend more time cleaning his rings they lost one game more. Pretty similar only Bruschi was at the end of his career.
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?
No. There are other good NFL teams in history. There are some other dynasties that should also have a bunch of players in the Hall.

[Roy H.]

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?

[StartOrien]

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?

Everyone ever

[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?

Urlacher was clearly better?  In one season he was lost for half the season. The team finished two games worse. In a different season he missed the whole year. The team finished two games worse.
The year after Bruschi retired to spend more time cleaning his rings they lost one game more. Pretty similar only Bruschi was at the end of his career.

  First of all, using that to judge who was better is pretty ridiculous. It only makes sense if the only change to those teams was losing that one player, the strength of each team's opponents were relatively unchanged from year to year and that the players that replaced them both were similar caliber of players. Secondly, even if you used that nonsense, you have Urlacher making twice to 4x the difference Tedy made.

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?

  So what exactly are you saying? That Seymour and Bruschi were the best defenders on that team and the other players had less of an impact, or that all of the players on that defense were equally valuable and none worth more than anyone else?

  Perk probably played on a better defensive team than Hakeem or Mutumbo did. That doesn't make him a better defender than either of them.  

[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?

Everyone ever

  No dice, we know of at least one person who won't...

[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.

[Roy H.]

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.

[Donoghus]

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.

[Rondo2287]

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

[KCattheStripe]

To quote Daniel Tosh, " His job is to catch a ball, it's really not that serious."

[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.

[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.

[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.