that you’re intentionally being obtuse here.

Cushings team did not even make the playoffs…barely a .500 team.

Point to where I said making the playoffs mattered. And “barely a .500 team” glosses over the fact that they had a winning record, but nice try. Besides, I never said the team had to have a winning record; I said “ROY certainly has something to do with how your team performs” and, because you missed it the first time, explained that wins that come in the rookie’s “big” games matter. See above for the list of specific examples.

As to your “research,” seriously?

2000 defensive rookie of the year Urlacher: Team record 5-11
2001 defensive rookie of the year Bell: Team record 13-3
2002 defensive rookie of the year Peppers: Team record 7-9
2003 defensive rookie of the year Suggs: Team record 10-6
2004 defensive rookie of the year Vilma: Team record 10-6
2005 defensive rookie of the year Merriman: Team record 9-7
2006 defensive rookie of the year Ryans: Team record 6-10
2007 defensive rookie of the year Willis: Team record 7-9

So, in the last ten years, 6 of the 10 have gone to players on winning teams and two more two teams that were 7-9 (i.e. pretty darn close to .500). Now, nevermind the fact that I didn’t say anything about a player having to be on a team that was above .500, that’s still 80% of the winners on teams that were 7-9 or better. With Ryans, you have a rookie notch over 150 tackles on a team that goes from 2-14 to 6-10, that, again, is wins factoring into the award (Ryans averaged almost 9 tackles/game in the team’s 6 wins and added 1.5 sacks in those games as well). Urlacher is about the only person on that list that you can say wins played very little (if any) role in the decision. He had 120+ tackles, 8 sacks, 2 INTs, and was playing one of the storied positions (Bears MLB) in NFL history. Most importantly, though, there wasn’t another D rookie that had numbers even remotely close to that.

And lets address you statement "carry it to its logical conclusion"….if logic to you is a player having 9 interceptions in one game you are an ass hat!!

Way to completely ignore your own logical fallacy! Nicely done. Logical conclusion is the relation between a set of propositions and another proposition where the former entails the latter. In this case, the propositions are: (1) nine interception is “a hell of a year,” and (2) the distribution of the nine over the schedule does not matter. The other proposition is (3) even if all the INTs came in one game, the player had a great season.

Now pay attention because I’m getting bored: For your original argument to be logically valid, the third proposition has to be true, regardless of the likelihood of 9 INTs in one game. If you are saying that, no, a 9 INT season is not a great year if they all came in one game, then your original argument fails. If you are saying that it would still be a great season, then your original argument flies in the face of what 99.999% of football fans would consider a great year. Whether or not it is likely that a player could get 9 in a game is irrelevant to the discussion and, more importantly, being unlikely does not make the statement illogical on its face.

who is the last Colts player to do so??

Irrelevant.

He is tied with Sharper, Samuel, and Woodson on the season…how can you say he didn’t have a great season…which is what you are saying.

You do know how reading works, right? Left-to-right, top-to-bottom. At NO POINT in this have I said he didn’t have a great season. I said that your argument for what constitutes a great season is flawed (which I just proved to you) and that all but one of Byrd’s INTs came over a span of five games while Cushing had a consistent impact for 16 games, and (impliedly) that sustained high-level performance is better than a short burst of high-level performance.

I’m not sure how all of this can be confusing, but if you have questions about how logic and reasoning (or even commas and ellipses) work, feel free to ask.