Dolfan5000 said:NYjunc just doesn't know when to admit he has been :0wned:
I think the discussion is over....maybe.

Dolfan5000 said:NYjunc just doesn't know when to admit he has been :0wned:
Doktor Ivel said:66 - Michael Lewis, S, Eagles
i've never even heard of this guy. what is Brian Dawkins at?
Nick is God said:The Sporting News just released their top 100 NFL players of 2005 and only one Dolphin made it - Jason Taylor #17 - meaning Zach Thomas in the eyes of this magazine is not worthy of being in the top 100 of today's players.
Here are some notables who were put ahead of him:
100 - Dre' Bly, CB, Lions
96 - Mark Bulger, QB, Rams
95 - Ty Law, CB, Jets (one of five Jets on the list)
94 - Donovin Darius, S, Jaguars
90 - Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila, DE, Packers
89 - Shawn Springs, S, Redskins
86 - Brian Westbrook, RB, Eagles
84 - Al Wilson, LB, Broncos (where in the hell was he this past Sunday? :shakeno: )
83 - Rudi Johnson, RB, Bengals
81 - Charles Grant, LB, Saints
80 - Leonard Little, LB, Rams
73 - Charles Tillman, CB, Bears
66 - Michael Lewis, S, Eagles
64 - Cornelius Griffin, DT, Redskins
63 - Jonathan Vilma, LB, Jets
62 - Shaun Ellis, DE, Jets
50 - Patrick Surtain, CB, Chiefs
And I'm not trying to suggest that Thomas is better than all these players, but it's hard to believe that he doesn't deserved to be at least ranked with them.
I guess heart, leadership and hard work doesn't count for nothing with it comes to the Sporting News.
Phin_Phan said:I guess 1500 yards and 12 TD's shouldnt get u a top 100 spot.....
Wildbill3 said:Why don't we compare apples to apples, let's compare Rookie seasons.
Zach's rookie season was better than vilma's, (although close) and with the exception of Zach's interception total last year, his season was still better than Vilmas.
G Total Tckl Ast Sacks Int Yds Avg Lg TD Pass Def
1996 16 155 120.0 35 2 3 64 21.3 27 1 2
2004 16 107 77.0 30 2 3 58 19.3 38 1 2
and Zach missed three games, while vilma started every game, and Zach still outtackled the boy.nyjunc said:Donb't forget Vilma didn't start early on and he came in and stabilized a D that was struggling early on and was brutal the year before. You can't go just on #s, Vilma had a better year last year than Zach.
Ok, we were struggling all year against the run, but when Zach was in... he simply dominated. I love how we can even prove you wrong with #'s and you come back and say he still had a better year... (Donnie Henderson had nothing to do with stabilizing your D right?). What about the rookie year comparisns, he was better then too? Still just gunna say "Well Vilma had a better year"? Don't gimme BS, give me hard evidence.nyjunc said:Donb't forget Vilma didn't start early on and he came in and stabilized a D that was struggling early on and was brutal the year before. You can't go just on #s, Vilma had a better year last year than Zach.
Wildbill3 said:and Zach missed three games, while vilma started every game, and Zach still outtackled the boy.