We are two years now into the Bart Scott era. While watching the NFL's Top 10 hardest hitters, I reflected on the Ray Lewis v. Bart Scott debate and which of the two we should sign. Looking back, did the Jets make the right decision in signing Scott over Lewis?
Ray Lewis will always be a Baltimore Raven. He's arguably the best inside linebacker to ever play the game. Lewis is by far the better player, but Scott was the more realistic option.
At age 36, do u think Ray Lewis is by far the better player than Bart Scott? I believe that is the question OP is asking.
we made the right choice in bringing in Scott. He fits our defense better (signing lewis would have meant dumping DH) he was going to be playing for more years than Lewis, and Scott is still one of the best in the game at what he does, its not like he is a slouch or anything...
Bart Scott MIGHT be better at taking on blockers but that is mostly because Ray Lewis is better at every other aspect of playing linebacker. Putting Ray Lewis in Bart Scott's role would be a complete waste of Ray Lewis' talent.
Well if Lewis was here I think Harris would take Scott's role but that'd be a waste of Harris' talent.
And a detriment to Harris' health. The one season he had major health issues was the year Mangini had him gain 20lbs to plAy the Ted position so Eric fucking Barton could be the Mike LB. So, to actually answer the OP's question, Bart Scott was the right choice for the team as he actually filled a need. Bringing in Ray Lewis would only have lead to: 1. Wasting the talent of a future HOF player;2. seriously threatening the career of (at the time) the youngest starter in he LB corps with the most potential.
Jets made the right choice. To match with David Harris, Scott was the right choice. Lewis could have matched with Harris, but the defense would have needed to be designed for that match. Rex Ryan's defense was already designed for Scott and Lewis. Harris just needed to fill Lewis's shoes, which he is doing spectacularly. Give Harris a few years and we will be talking about him in the same light as Ray Lewis is today. Outside of that, Ray Lewis had injury concerns and was much older. He was high risk, high reward, where Scott was low risk, medium reward. It was a no brainer.
I clouldn't be happier w/ what Bart has brought our team. Ray is an all time great and Bart will never be Ray but Bart has been everything and more that we expected of him. I would trust rex's opinion in regards to this matter.
Did we have a choice? Signing Lewis would've cost more and would've hamstrung the team even more in signing other players. Scott has been a leader for this team and has helped shape the team's identity under Rex. He may not be a HOF'er like Lewis, but I love having Bart on our team.
Ray Lewis is the better player, but he's older and more expensive. I also think Ray Lewis wouldn't have helped create the culture of the new Jets under Rex like Bart has done. Bart really stepped up and became a vocal leader and helped get the guys to buy into the Rex Ryan system.
Ray signed a 3 year, $22mil contract with $15m guaranteed. Scott signed a 6 year, $48m contract with $22m guaranteed. We actually paid much more for Scott than Ray. Shorter term contracts are usually larger annually than longer term contracts. If Ray wasn't tagged (was he tagged and signed?), and we wanted to offer Ray a 6 year contract, we would have had him for less than $40m.
Glad this has gotten some discussion going, and I've been surprised by a few posts. I think I articulated the question wrong though. For purposes of the question, assume Ray would have come if we offered. I guess the financial impact has to be weighed, but I wonder, overall effect. Would our defense have been better, worse, or pretty much the same if we signed Ray instead of Bart. Do you think the shitty tackling in the first half of the Steelers game would have happened if Ray had been captaining this defense?
