Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Patriots are now in the lead for Team of the Decade....again (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Riversco
- Start date
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
there will be no team of the decade
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Using a basic points system . . .
Win SB = 5 pts
Lose SB = 4 pts
Lose ConfChamp = 3 pts
Lose Div Round = 2 pts
Lose WC Round = 1 pt
Since 2010 . . .
NEP 20 points
GBP, SEA, DEN 15 points
BAL 12 points
SFO 10 points
PIT, CAR 8 points
IND 7 points
ATL 6 points
NOS, NYG, HOU, CIN 5 points
KCC, ARI 4 points
NYJ, CHI 3 points
PHI, DET, MIN, WAS, SDC, WAS 2 points
Win SB = 5 pts
Lose SB = 4 pts
Lose ConfChamp = 3 pts
Lose Div Round = 2 pts
Lose WC Round = 1 pt
Since 2010 . . .
NEP 20 points
GBP, SEA, DEN 15 points
BAL 12 points
SFO 10 points
PIT, CAR 8 points
IND 7 points
ATL 6 points
NOS, NYG, HOU, CIN 5 points
KCC, ARI 4 points
NYJ, CHI 3 points
PHI, DET, MIN, WAS, SDC, WAS 2 points
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Agreed. You have to win more than 1 championship in a decade to even be considered IMO and in my opinion more than 2. Otherwise there is no team of the decade.
1930's Packers or Bears
1940's Bears
1950's Browns or Lions
1960's Packers
1970's Steelers
1980's 49ers
1990's Cowboys
2000's Patriots
2010's - none -
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Any system that has a team that only appeared in one championship game, and lost, ranked higher than a team that won two league championships is severely flawed.
Broncos have been in two sbs this decade. Granted they only played in one, but still.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes cowboys won three times in the 90s, but the broncos won twice and lost in a third.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
It depends upon what you consider as important across a 10 year body of work. If a team won two championships but didn't make the playoffs in 4 other seasons like PIT, were they really a candidate for the best team of the decade?
If we go with a 10-5-3-2-1 point system for each round of the playoffs, then things would look like this for 2000 - 2009:
Code:
NEP 41PIT 29IND 27PHI 22BAL 20NYG 20NOS 15TBB 14SEA 11TEN 10GBP 10SDC 10OAK 10STL 10CAR 10MIN 9NYJ 9CHI 9ARI 7DEN 6ATL 6DAL 6MIA 4SFO 3KCC 3WAS 3JAX 3CIN 2CLE 1
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Still too early to tell the best bets are:
New England
Seattle
Pittsburgh
Baltimore
Denver
Carolina
New England
Seattle
Pittsburgh
Baltimore
Denver
Carolina
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Nope and I wasn't suggesting they were. But I would consider a team that won 2 championships in 10 years over a team that hadn't won any.
IMO championships are the primary criteria in determining a team of the decade. Once you get beyond that then by all means factor in their playoff records to break a tie. There is no way that a team that wins only one championship or none at all should be considered as a team of the decade. But that's just my opinion... others may feel differently.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Here's the updated tale of the tape for the SB winners including this weekend's games . . .
Code:
W L % W L % Playoffs Conf SB Titles
NEP 89 23 0.795 9 5 0.643 7 6 2 1
SEA 70.5 41.5 0.629 9 5 0.643 6 2 2 1
DEN 71 41 0.634 6 4 0.6 5 2 2 1
GB 78.5 33.5 0.701 9 5 0.643 7 3 1 1
BAL 65 47 0.58 7 3 0.7 4 2 1 1
NYG 58 54 0.518 4 1 0.8 2 1 1 1Godsbrother
Footballguy
The only thing that matters when considering Team of the Decade is championships. No one cares about playoff losses, just ask the 70s Dolphins and Vikings and the 90s Bills.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
So if there's a 3 way tie on SB appearances (2) and wins (1), would you agree the team who went to 6 straight Conf championships (double or triple the other contenders), and 26% higher win rate overally (80% vs 63%) would get the nod? Or are we going to just concede any credibility with some other obscure unit of measurement?
@Anarchy99, out of curiosity... what are the highest win% over the span of a decade in the modern NFL?
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Tell me what you want . . . a force decade (say 2000-2009) or the best 10 year stretch. IMO, Also, does "best" lean on most titles? Does "best" include winning% for regular season and post season mixed in?
I can look up whatever you want, but depending upon the criteria may impact the outcome.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
In my opinion 2 championships is really not enough to be called a team of a decade but that's just me. You can think anything you want.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Just curious, if either (A) there are 10 different teams win a title in a decade or (B) if the team with the most rings only has two . . . is there no team of the decade that decade? Personally, I find the rigid markers of a decade an artificial boundary that can muddy the waters. If a team is great at the end of one decade and the start of the next, that team might not get much consideration for either decade.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Green Bay is going to win this next Championship. Just like the 13 prior.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
[icon]
Insoxicated
if data manipulation isn't tedious I would LOVE to see top 3 or 5 teams by winning percentage over:
1) Force decades (2000-2009)
2) 10 year stretch (Though I imagine this is likely more tedious)
@Anarchy99
[icon]
Insoxicated
I agree as well, but this IS a thread for "team of the decade"... so it's kinda based on the forced arbitrary metric of decades, for better or worse.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
They both are pretty straight forward. The any time frame is actually a lot easier. The lease labor intensive is regular season only. I did the forced decade cutoffs earlier in this thread, but the board update / conversion apparently wiped out the data. Let me see what I can come up with.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
In the past 12 years, only 2 teams won two titles. The Steelers won 0 of their titles in the 2010's. The Giants won once in the 2000's and once in the 2010's.BusterTBronco said:
So who you got as the team of the 2010's?
DEN, NE, SEA, BAL, NYG, and GB all won once.
Last edited by a moderator:
Godsbrother
Footballguy
In my opinion these things are best decided after a decade. And if you look back and no team was dominant , it is okay to say that there wasn't one.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Still waiting for your definition of what constitute a dominant team, since apparently 2 SB wins wouldn't qualify. Three?
How about 2 SB titles, 2 SB losses, and 6 other trips to the conference finals?
[icon]
Insoxicated
I do agree here. There may be a "best team of the decade" that just didn't qualify as "team of the decade". I do think the Patriots are the leading contender for both categories this decade, after clearly being both last decade.
[icon]
Insoxicated
Anarchy99
Footballguy
If the test is pass / fail and the only grade is based on ring or no ring, then there is no answer to this question so far.
Deamon
Footballguy
Anyone saying it's not the Pats is just playing Devil's Advocate. There's no other team it can be as of now.
I do agree though that this 'decade' thing hurts teams good at the end/beginning of decades. But in order to make headlines and talk about it, we kind of have to use the round numbers to define the decade. Either way, even looking at almost any 10 year span you'd still have to give it to New England.
They've had the best record in their division for SIXTEEN STRAIGHT YEARS! Think about that for a second... 16 years in a row!!!! (2 of those years they were tied for top record in their div).
I do agree though that this 'decade' thing hurts teams good at the end/beginning of decades. But in order to make headlines and talk about it, we kind of have to use the round numbers to define the decade. Either way, even looking at almost any 10 year span you'd still have to give it to New England.
They've had the best record in their division for SIXTEEN STRAIGHT YEARS! Think about that for a second... 16 years in a row!!!! (2 of those years they were tied for top record in their div).
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Yeah, well they play a bunch of pansies. Put them in any other division and they'd be lucky to win 6 divisional titles.They get 6 gift victories a year.
Deamon
Footballguy
I agree that their div has been weak, but to go from 16 to "lucky to even get 6' is overcompensating for that way too much. They're still beating the top teams in other divisions in the regular season so no reason to think they wouldn't beat the weaker teams in those divisions too? They're averaging a 12.75 WINS-3.75 LOSSES record over 16 seasons. Even if you hate the Pats, that is absolutely insane.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Actually I don't know. It is kinda like porn -- I'm not sure I can define it but I know it when I see it.
For me it is clear that the Packers were the team of the 60s: 5 championships, the Steelers in the 70s had 4, The 49ers in the 80s had 4, The Cowboys had 3 in 4 years in the 90s so they get the nod as do the Patriots in the 2000s.
If the Patriots win the Super Bowl this season but don't win another I wouldn't consider it to be enough to be the team of the decade but that's just me. If others want to throw that label on them that is certainly their right.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
As said upthread, "Team of the Decade" =/= best team over the course of the decade. Former implies more consistent Championship-level dominance, at least to my way of thinking. I agree that I'd probably need three rings for the former, and I'd also agree the the Patriots are clearly the latter.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
That time of year again. Pats fans playing the "disrespect" card.
ETA: And here comes the "Steelers video will be used as motivation by the Pats" story on ESPN.
ETA: And here comes the "Steelers video will be used as motivation by the Pats" story on ESPN.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deamon
Footballguy
Thunderlips
Footballguy
Season isn't over yet and the decade still has three more seasons in it. If the Pats win another SB...you'd be hard pressed to name another team, as it stands right now, as the Team of the Decade. The only way they wouldn't win it then is if they #### the bed for the next three years and another team (PIT/GB) goes on a tear and appears in 3 of the next 4 Super Bowls (winning at least 2). Maybe if a team like DAL dominates for the next 3 years and the Pats don't do anything spectacular.....that might topple the Pats. As it stands, they have to currently be the favorites because of their regular season record, their playoff record AND their two Super Bowl appearances.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
