Sometime ask the Orthodox the question Jesus asked Peter, "Who do men say that I am? ... Who do you say that I am?" in reference, not to Jesus, but to the Pope.
There are almost as many answers as there are Orthodox.
I think the problem is that our understanding of what the Roman primacy means has diverged, and it was diverging for quite some time before 1054. So, some of the Orthodox might say that would be happy to recognize a Roman primacy that operated they way they think the Roman primacy operated before, say AD 800. Problem: even if we could understand accurately how the east viewed the Roman primacy before AD 800 and reproduce it today, that's not necessarily the way the West viewed it before AD 800, to say nothing of the way the West views it today.
Overlapping (not identical) tradition, but different ways of understanding it, especially in the area of ecclesiology and church government.
It simply points out that "tradition" isn't all that it's cracked up to be. There are obvious different interpretation of those traditions. How do you know the west is following the right traditions? Someone's right and someone's wrong and both state they're following tradition. Why it's enough to make a Protestant dizzy.
Of course Irenaeus would say to follow the Bishop. The church was small and these were honorable men. Not to slam the Church for we all have our problems, but I wonder if he would say the same thing about Bishops who covered up pedophile priests?