*****Official Patriots are the Best Team in NFL History Thread***** (1 Viewer)

[switz]

I do know that my perception of watching the Pats this year is that for me the most impressive thing that tops all others was the inability of teams to pur pressure on Brady. I contrast that to my Steelers, where Big Ben had people in his face every week. If I could steal one part of this New England team and put it on my own, its that offensive line. Prior to this year, I would have said that the 92-95 Cowboys had the most dominant offensive line of all time. Not any more.

In responding to the above bolded quote, I wouldnt change my opinion on the dominance of those 90s Dallas Olines if I were you. They were imo far more dominant than this New England line. And this NE line is very good. They give Brady all day to throw quite often. That Dallas line, specifically the one that included Larry Allen beginning in '94, was the biggest, baddest, most road-grating smack you upside the head and steamroll you like road kill bunch of over-sized steakhouse grubbin' collection of thugs Ive ever seen in my life. Erik Williams, Larry Allen, and Nate Newton all on the same team? With I believe Stepnoski and Tuinei filling out the 5. That line absolutely mauled people. Dont change your thinking there.

Of course, because if people knew that NE's OLine this year was the best ever, then it might slightly diminish Brady's accomplishments Pats had what, three Pro Bowlers on the OL this year, and 4 of the 5 were high draft picks, the only one that wasn't Koppen was a steal, and made the ProBowl.

The OL this year and the past 3-4 has been a very very very good, if not the best in the league OL.

On the note of the post, they haven't won the SB yet... not that I doubt they will, but let's at least wait until they do. Then I'd have to say no one could argue that they are the best team of all time.

 

[twitch]

I do know that my perception of watching the Pats this year is that for me the most impressive thing that tops all others was the inability of teams to pur pressure on Brady. I contrast that to my Steelers, where Big Ben had people in his face every week. If I could steal one part of this New England team and put it on my own, its that offensive line. Prior to this year, I would have said that the 92-95 Cowboys had the most dominant offensive line of all time. Not any more.

In responding to the above bolded quote, I wouldnt change my opinion on the dominance of those 90s Dallas Olines if I were you. They were imo far more dominant than this New England line. And this NE line is very good. They give Brady all day to throw quite often. That Dallas line, specifically the one that included Larry Allen beginning in '94, was the biggest, baddest, most road-grating smack you upside the head and steamroll you like road kill bunch of over-sized steakhouse grubbin' collection of thugs Ive ever seen in my life. Erik Williams, Larry Allen, and Nate Newton all on the same team? With I believe Stepnoski and Tuinei filling out the 5. That line absolutely mauled people. Dont change your thinking there.

Of course, because if people knew that NE's OLine this year was the best ever, then it might slightly diminish Brady's accomplishments Pats had what, three Pro Bowlers on the OL this year, and 4 of the 5 were high draft picks, the only one that wasn't Koppen was a steal, and made the ProBowl.

The OL this year and the past 3-4 has been a very very very good, if not the best in the league OL.

On the note of the post, they haven't won the SB yet... not that I doubt they will, but let's at least wait until they do. Then I'd have to say no one could argue that they are the best team of all time.

It's not always about trying to slant something towards Brady or New England for that matter. Just stating a confident opinion that those Dallas Olines were the best Ive ever seen personally. We all recognize how great this Pats Oline is and how greatly they impact what Brady does. Theyre just not as great as Aikman's mob. That crew just reeked of domination.

 

[phthalatemagic]

You, timschochet, and phthalatemagic share an endless Shark Pool history of mindlessly hating a particular team. None of you can come on here, offer a supposedly thought out argument that slants against said team, and not expect a little healthy skepticism. For many of us, regardless of team allegiance, it's like listening to a political pundit; their argument has the sound of intelligence, but the guy has no credibility, and furthermore you know he started with his conclusion and just cherry-picked facts to support it. Me personally, I'd prefer something obnoxious about asterisks or pregnant supermodels from you (or timschochet); at least that would be honest. Thank god Timmy-boy's playing the "cheating" card again - the more of you goofs I can out the better.

You got me all wrong buddy. I don't hate the Patriots, not at all. I just point out that their fans are the worst in the history of sport, that the Patriots are an NFL darling and the NFL protects them and that the Patriots cheat. There is no hate there, only factual statements. None of these factual statements require data to support them.

 

[Road Warriors]

I do know that my perception of watching the Pats this year is that for me the most impressive thing that tops all others was the inability of teams to pur pressure on Brady. I contrast that to my Steelers, where Big Ben had people in his face every week. If I could steal one part of this New England team and put it on my own, its that offensive line. Prior to this year, I would have said that the 92-95 Cowboys had the most dominant offensive line of all time. Not any more.

In responding to the above bolded quote, I wouldnt change my opinion on the dominance of those 90s Dallas Olines if I were you. They were imo far more dominant than this New England line. And this NE line is very good. They give Brady all day to throw quite often. That Dallas line, specifically the one that included Larry Allen beginning in '94, was the biggest, baddest, most road-grating smack you upside the head and steamroll you like road kill bunch of over-sized steakhouse grubbin' collection of thugs Ive ever seen in my life. Erik Williams, Larry Allen, and Nate Newton all on the same team? With I believe Stepnoski and Tuinei filling out the 5. That line absolutely mauled people. Dont change your thinking there.

Of course, because if people knew that NE's OLine this year was the best ever, then it might slightly diminish Brady's accomplishments Pats had what, three Pro Bowlers on the OL this year, and 4 of the 5 were high draft picks, the only one that wasn't Koppen was a steal, and made the ProBowl.

The OL this year and the past 3-4 has been a very very very good, if not the best in the league OL.

On the note of the post, they haven't won the SB yet... not that I doubt they will, but let's at least wait until they do. Then I'd have to say no one could argue that they are the best team of all time.

It's not always about trying to slant something towards Brady or New England for that matter. Just stating a confident opinion that those Dallas Olines were the best Ive ever seen personally. We all recognize how great this Pats Oline is and how greatly they impact what Brady does. Theyre just not as great as Aikman's mob. That crew just reeked of domination.

And I think these two groups are both great, but they're great at different things. The DAL line was built to run all day. Physically dominate the LOS and allow Emmitt to pick his hole & go. The Pats line is a good run blocking line, but possibly the best pass-blocking line I've seen ( certainly since the Marino days ). I can't recall seeing a spread formation give more time to a QB than this line did nearly every snap. I don't recall enough of the DAL 90's teams to state what type of pass blocking team they were. I'm assuming, at a minimum, a very good unit in pass protection and a dominant one in run blocking. I'd put this Pats O-line up there with them, dominant in pass protection and a very good run-blocking team.

 

[Workhorse]

You, timschochet, and phthalatemagic share an endless Shark Pool history of mindlessly hating a particular team. None of you can come on here, offer a supposedly thought out argument that slants against said team, and not expect a little healthy skepticism. For many of us, regardless of team allegiance, it's like listening to a political pundit; their argument has the sound of intelligence, but the guy has no credibility, and furthermore you know he started with his conclusion and just cherry-picked facts to support it. Me personally, I'd prefer something obnoxious about asterisks or pregnant supermodels from you (or timschochet); at least that would be honest. Thank god Timmy-boy's playing the "cheating" card again - the more of you goofs I can out the better.

You got me all wrong buddy. I don't hate the Patriots, not at all. I just point out that their fans are the worst in the history of sport, that the Patriots are an NFL darling and the NFL protects them and that the Patriots cheat. There is no hate there, only factual statements. None of these factual statements require data to support them.

This schtick started off like "marked down, day old doughnuts", and has now crossed over into "completely unfit for human consumption".

 

[twitch]

I do know that my perception of watching the Pats this year is that for me the most impressive thing that tops all others was the inability of teams to pur pressure on Brady. I contrast that to my Steelers, where Big Ben had people in his face every week. If I could steal one part of this New England team and put it on my own, its that offensive line. Prior to this year, I would have said that the 92-95 Cowboys had the most dominant offensive line of all time. Not any more.

In responding to the above bolded quote, I wouldnt change my opinion on the dominance of those 90s Dallas Olines if I were you. They were imo far more dominant than this New England line. And this NE line is very good. They give Brady all day to throw quite often. That Dallas line, specifically the one that included Larry Allen beginning in '94, was the biggest, baddest, most road-grating smack you upside the head and steamroll you like road kill bunch of over-sized steakhouse grubbin' collection of thugs Ive ever seen in my life. Erik Williams, Larry Allen, and Nate Newton all on the same team? With I believe Stepnoski and Tuinei filling out the 5. That line absolutely mauled people. Dont change your thinking there.

Of course, because if people knew that NE's OLine this year was the best ever, then it might slightly diminish Brady's accomplishments Pats had what, three Pro Bowlers on the OL this year, and 4 of the 5 were high draft picks, the only one that wasn't Koppen was a steal, and made the ProBowl.

The OL this year and the past 3-4 has been a very very very good, if not the best in the league OL.

On the note of the post, they haven't won the SB yet... not that I doubt they will, but let's at least wait until they do. Then I'd have to say no one could argue that they are the best team of all time.

It's not always about trying to slant something towards Brady or New England for that matter. Just stating a confident opinion that those Dallas Olines were the best Ive ever seen personally. We all recognize how great this Pats Oline is and how greatly they impact what Brady does. Theyre just not as great as Aikman's mob. That crew just reeked of domination.

And I think these two groups are both great, but they're great at different things. The DAL line was built to run all day. Physically dominate the LOS and allow Emmitt to pick his hole & go. The Pats line is a good run blocking line, but possibly the best pass-blocking line I've seen ( certainly since the Marino days ). I can't recall seeing a spread formation give more time to a QB than this line did nearly every snap. I don't recall enough of the DAL 90's teams to state what type of pass blocking team they were. I'm assuming, at a minimum, a very good unit in pass protection and a dominant one in run blocking. I'd put this Pats O-line up there with them, dominant in pass protection and a very good run-blocking team.

Oline comparisons are much like team comparisons in that its tough to really say which is the best, but it just seems a little more clear to me because they are smaller, more isolated groups to compare. Here's some data to throw out there to make a case for that Dallas group, but I'll start with some basic data from '07 regarding New England's line. NE didnt lead the league this year in sacks allowed. They gave up 21, which in fact only ranked 5th. The 4 units ahead of them were New Orleans, Cinci, Cleveland and Green Bay. And not surprising, all five teams were primarily PASSING teams. They were all near the top in pass attempts. NO had 652, then New England with 586, followed by Green Bay-578, Cinci-575 and Cleveland-545. And interestingly enough, Arizona, who's 590 pass attempts was tied for 2nd most in the NFL, allowed the 8th lowest sack total. Now, there are good teams and bad teams among this list, but they all threw the ball a ton and none of them gave up very many sacks. Coincidence? Did they all throw the ball so much because their lines were so good at it? Or were there were lines so good at because they threw the ball so much? Im sure we'd all be quick to point to the Lions to blow that logic out of the water, but of course their QB is a sack-receiving machine, much like David Carr, who's former team the Texans only allowed 22 sacks this season btw, 6th least, and only 1 more than New England's dominant line. I tend to buy into the thinking that the more you practice something, the better you get at it. So generally speaking, the more often an Oline has to drop back in protection, the more cohesive they'll become and the better protection they will provide. New Orleans Oline is the definition of that logic, attempting the most passes while allowing the fewest sacks. Dallas' sack totals from the years beginning in '92 were pretty consistent. They allowed 23 in '92, 29 in '93, 20 in '94( when Allen joined the team), 18 in '95, and 19 in '96. Those years pretty much encompass Dallas' run of dominance, imo. Now, they threw the ball less than other teams because they were such a dominant run team, so we could expect the sack total to be lower based on the lower # of attempts. But again, as suggested by the data provided in the preceding paragraph, # of attempts do not automatically effect # of sacks allowed as logic would otherwise suggest. Those Dallas Olines had some good sack totals, despite it not really being their strong suit. They were much more of a running team. But if you recall, Aikman generally had all day to throw back then, much like Brady has today.

Here's the thing. Ive got it in my head that those Dallas lines were more dominant because the way they went about it was just more physically impressive. They consistently blew teams off the line, and Emmitt would just run threw these gaping holes for huge chunks of yardage. It was incredible how big they were, and how often they would manhandle teams up front, despite everyone in the stadium knowing what was coming. Its a little bit like someone making a case that the 85 Bears were a more dominant team than the 89 Niners because they just physically dominated teams more. Theyd smack you around until you couldnt take anymore. The Niners and Montana would just sling it around and kill you with efficiency. Which is more dominant? The team than smacks you around all day, or the team that scrambles your brain into submission? Same with an Oline. Would you rather be run over all day, or just kept away from the cookie jar? Me, Id rather keep reaching for the cookie jar, not matter how impossible it may seem to reach.

 

[Clifton]

I do know that my perception of watching the Pats this year is that for me the most impressive thing that tops all others was the inability of teams to pur pressure on Brady. I contrast that to my Steelers, where Big Ben had people in his face every week. If I could steal one part of this New England team and put it on my own, its that offensive line. Prior to this year, I would have said that the 92-95 Cowboys had the most dominant offensive line of all time. Not any more.

In responding to the above bolded quote, I wouldnt change my opinion on the dominance of those 90s Dallas Olines if I were you. They were imo far more dominant than this New England line. And this NE line is very good. They give Brady all day to throw quite often. That Dallas line, specifically the one that included Larry Allen beginning in '94, was the biggest, baddest, most road-grating smack you upside the head and steamroll you like road kill bunch of over-sized steakhouse grubbin' collection of thugs Ive ever seen in my life. Erik Williams, Larry Allen, and Nate Newton all on the same team? With I believe Stepnoski and Tuinei filling out the 5. That line absolutely mauled people. Dont change your thinking there.

Of course, because if people knew that NE's OLine this year was the best ever, then it might slightly diminish Brady's accomplishments Pats had what, three Pro Bowlers on the OL this year, and 4 of the 5 were high draft picks, the only one that wasn't Koppen was a steal, and made the ProBowl.

The OL this year and the past 3-4 has been a very very very good, if not the best in the league OL.

On the note of the post, they haven't won the SB yet... not that I doubt they will, but let's at least wait until they do. Then I'd have to say no one could argue that they are the best team of all time.

SWITZ

Spoiler

 

[Borat]

You, timschochet, and phthalatemagic share an endless Shark Pool history of mindlessly hating a particular team. None of you can come on here, offer a supposedly thought out argument that slants against said team, and not expect a little healthy skepticism. For many of us, regardless of team allegiance, it's like listening to a political pundit; their argument has the sound of intelligence, but the guy has no credibility, and furthermore you know he started with his conclusion and just cherry-picked facts to support it. Me personally, I'd prefer something obnoxious about asterisks or pregnant supermodels from you (or timschochet); at least that would be honest. Thank god Timmy-boy's playing the "cheating" card again - the more of you goofs I can out the better.

You got me all wrong buddy. I don't hate the Patriots, not at all. I just point out that their fans are the worst in the history of sport, that the Patriots are an NFL darling and the NFL protects them and that the Patriots cheat. There is no hate there, only factual statements. None of these factual statements require data to support them.

I bet you throw the remote into the TV and scream at your wife when things don't go your team's way, huh?

 

[phthalatemagic]

You, timschochet, and phthalatemagic share an endless Shark Pool history of mindlessly hating a particular team. None of you can come on here, offer a supposedly thought out argument that slants against said team, and not expect a little healthy skepticism. For many of us, regardless of team allegiance, it's like listening to a political pundit; their argument has the sound of intelligence, but the guy has no credibility, and furthermore you know he started with his conclusion and just cherry-picked facts to support it. Me personally, I'd prefer something obnoxious about asterisks or pregnant supermodels from you (or timschochet); at least that would be honest. Thank god Timmy-boy's playing the "cheating" card again - the more of you goofs I can out the better.

You got me all wrong buddy. I don't hate the Patriots, not at all. I just point out that their fans are the worst in the history of sport, that the Patriots are an NFL darling and the NFL protects them and that the Patriots cheat. There is no hate there, only factual statements. None of these factual statements require data to support them.

I bet you throw the remote into the TV and scream at your wife when things don't go your team's way, huh?

Nah, I'm pretty used to it.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

You, timschochet, and phthalatemagic share an endless Shark Pool history of mindlessly hating a particular team. None of you can come on here, offer a supposedly thought out argument that slants against said team, and not expect a little healthy skepticism. For many of us, regardless of team allegiance, it's like listening to a political pundit; their argument has the sound of intelligence, but the guy has no credibility, and furthermore you know he started with his conclusion and just cherry-picked facts to support it. Me personally, I'd prefer something obnoxious about asterisks or pregnant supermodels from you (or timschochet); at least that would be honest. Thank god Timmy-boy's playing the "cheating" card again - the more of you goofs I can out the better.

You got me all wrong buddy. I don't hate the Patriots, not at all. I just point out that their fans are the worst in the history of sport, that the Patriots are an NFL darling and the NFL protects them and that the Patriots cheat. There is no hate there, only factual statements. None of these factual statements require data to support them.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for linking the first three "facts" with the fourth "fact". While you may not be aware of it, your advocacy is helping people arrive at correct conclusions. Keep up the good work.

 

[timschochet]

To the set the record straight-

I have always rooted against the Pats, and I have admitted it is more out of jealousy than any legitimate reason.

They did cheat, and no matter what you try to argue, it will have an effect on how people view this team.

I have tried to be objective in this discussion of greatness; I can't help it if certain thin-skinned fans get rubbed the wrong way.

 

[bradyfan]

I don't hate the Patriots, not at all. I just point out that their fans are the worst in the history of sport, that the Patriots are an NFL darling and the NFL protects them and that the Patriots cheat. There is no hate there, only factual statements. None of these factual statements require data to support them.

There are a total of 3 Patriots fans in the Shark Pool. I don't know why you're so overwhelmed by our Brady love.

 

[PMENFAN]

No doubt the offense is one of if not THE best, but I don't buy the defensive side to make it best ever "Team"Sure, they played well yesterday, but lets face it; Rivers coming off surgery, LT out and Gates ailing. Aside from Chambers resurgence, that's pretty much THE Bolts offense. Too bad for them, damn good timing for Pats.

In the interest of full disclosure, even without Rivers, this Chargers team had enough to take out the defending champion Colts, with several calls in the Colts favor. They have a very good D, But, to be even more fair, they played when healthy in week 2. Though the Pats were missing Harrison and Seymour. The chargers could have derailed the season. Any team could have, but none did. That's what is spectacular. There's one game left. If they do it, they're the best ever, because nobody else has ever gone undefeated. The best offense ever, playing the other team that got to the AFCC, twice. They'll have beaten the NFC representative, twice. There's really little to discuss. If they beat the Giants, it's difinitive. They're the best ever.

So you've already counted the win in two weeks. Case in point re: "smugness"The Bolts, without THE dominant player in the league over the past 2-3 years came into Foxboro and played the Pats toe-to -toe. Pats only scored 3 times and one of those was a gimme short field of 24 yds.

I addressed this above, but reality is that you can measure all the mighta, could, possibilities, but at the end of the day, the NED, held them to field goals, and only one FG in the second half. NE wins by 9, cramming the ball down their throats at the end. NE made the adjustment to a 2TE run game in the second half and simply outplayed them. Just like a 100% healthy team from SD didn't make a difference in week 2, it wouldn't have made a difference last week. With a healthy Dbackfield, for NE , do you think the Colts win the AFCC last year? I think not. But what happened really happened. The Pats are 18-0, and this discussion continues.

wy Jercules, (Can I call you "Jerc" for short?)I didn't start this thread. The question the thread asks is, are the Pats the greatest team of all time? Not a great team, not one of the best teams ever, but definitively the greatest. I replied, not in my opinion, but I put them down as #4 of all time, and later on after reading Twitch's brilliant argument, I agreed that they might even be the 2nd best team of all time, and they compare favorably with the 49ers in many ways.To anyone who wasn't an irrational, myopic, completely arrogant Patriot fan with no sense of appreciation for NFL history, this would be considered high praise for New England. However, you responded that I am ripping on your team. Why am I not surprised by this?Months ago I wrote that some of you Patriot fans in the Shark Pool were insecure, and of course I was attacked for that. But now I'm grateful to you for proving my theory.

timscholetMy only question is that if the 49ers were better, adnt he best of all time, how did they not go undefeated? They were a great team surely, and deserve to be in the conversation. But, even in an era of no cap, where they clearly had the best front office in the game, they were not undefeated. Yeah, Brady threw three picks in the AFCC, and they still won the game going away. I believe that speaks more to the greatness of the TEAM than against it. You're entitled to your opinion of course.

Gee, it's a good thing to know I'm civilized in your eyes. So if I put the Pats somewhere at #2-4 of all time, to you that's "horsesh*t"? Are you at all aware of how you sound? There's this little kid my daughter plays musical chairs with. This kid loves musical chairs, because he always wins. That's because he hovers around one chair and refuses to leave it. When called on his cheating, he whines and cries, and his mother finally gives in, because he's only four, and its too important to the kid, he has to win at everything. IMO, he's an insufferable little brat.Certain Patriot fans remind me strongly of this kid...

Is this a first person narrative tim? You're attacking Jercules, et al, for clinging to the Pats as #1, yet you believe you're right? You dismiss the largest point differential over a season in favor of blowouts in the playoffs in a time when there simply weren't many good teams. Every argument has maerits. My only question to those who would put a team with even a single loss abolve the team who beat the best repeatedly during the season, including the defending champions on the road is why? We know why with the 17-0 Dolphins. They played a horrible schedule. Teh Pats played many of the playoff teams, adn it will be two of them twich. They will have beaten the AFC representative in the SB twice, three of the top 4 seeds in the AFC, with themselves being the fourth. You cite point differential in the playoffs, yet earlier int he year you criticized the Pats for blowing out people. You want it both ways, and try to decipher the stats in your favor, using different rules to judge the teams. At the end of the day, I really don't care who considers the Pats the best of all time. I iwll have witnessed them going 19-0 setting the record book on fire. That's enough for me. I'll discuss it for years, but in my mind is where this decision lies.

Interestingly, if/when the Patriots win the Super Bowl, they will have done it by having beaten two wild card teams and a cripped division winner that didn't have a bye. They will not have beaten any of the other 1 or 2 seeds in the playoffs (yes, I know that is not their fault that all of those teams got upset by lesser teams). Doesn't help their cause much, does it?

Interesting point. But, you answered your own question. Those teams lost the right to be the team to beat the Pats. Fut of the 3 possible #1 or #2's, the Pats already did beat two of them, having never played Green Bay. Though NE has already beaten the team that they lost to at home, on the road. And, IF NE goes on to win the SB, they will have beaten that team twice. Actually that team is the team that took out the #1 and #2. NE also beat the #1 AFC team in the regular season, and the team that took them out. Interesting point, but harldly a deciding factor.

Head to head, I'll take the 1985 Chicago Bears. You can't just look at total points scored to judge a defense, though they stack up well there. You have to look at the disruptive nature of that 46 defense... I just think it would be enough to keep the Pats offense in check... and that Walter Payton could help keep the Bears O on the field.An often overlooked team in the discussion of "greatest teams ever", and it pains me to say this, is the 1996 Packers. Favre, White, dominant D, Dominant O... they just killed people that year. They did have a few slips ups (3), so that probably keeps them off the list, but if you lined them up head to head with the Pats this year, I wouldn't bet either way.

Head to head, I'd be hesitant to lay points in either direction. A single game matchup is a coin flip among great teams. Who schemed better that day, etc.? A game decided among two teams even close to each other in talent/abiliity is decided by 3 or four key plays. The Pats have made those plays all year. Others through history have not.

 

[CanadianNFLJunkie]

IF the Pats win the SB, even then i'd have to say that they are NOT the best team ever. The Pats ddn't dominate like some other teams have in the past, like some of those 49er teams in the 80's, where they just blew out the opponents in Dec and Jan, something that the Pats couldn't do. I'd have them in the top-3 but not as THE best. Giving them this so called title now, BEFORE the Super Bowl was won just proves how idiotic some of you are. You don't win titles in Sept and Oct, it's won in January, (and now pushed back to February).

As for the rants about the OL's of Dallas and this Pats team, I think a lot of credit has to go to Randy Moss for giving Brady more time to throw. When you go to a spread formation, either with 4 or 5 receiver sets, with Moss out there, you can't squeeze the box with 7 or even 8 in there. There has to be safety help over the top on Moss, hence making the passing game work. Yes both OL's are very good but I'd give the edge to Dallas for now.

 

[timschochet]

PMENFAN,

It is strictly a matter of opinion. But be aware that when I rate San Francisco #1 overall, I am neither a 49er fan or a Patriot fan. I am quite positive many, if not most Patriot fans will argue that this team should be considered the greatest of all time, but as they are hardly neutral, their arguments should be given less weight. Denver Bronco fans will argue all day long that John Elway is the greatest QB of all time. I loved him, he's in my top ten, but he's not the greatest, and only they think so.

My view is that the way you win your playoff games is more important than going undefeated in the regular season. I think lots of luck is involved in going undefeated, and the Pats had that. They were clearly the best team all year, but there were a few games (Baltimore and Philly) where they did not play very well, and managed to hang on and win. That's to their credit; don't get me wrong. But I don't personally make a whole lot of distinction between 16-0 and 14-2. If you were comparing two pitchers, just because one of them had more perfect games and no-hitters doesn't make him a better pitcher. It's just one factor to be considered.

 

[Workhorse]

My view is that the way you win your playoff games is more important than going undefeated in the regular season. I think lots of luck is involved in going undefeated, and the Pats had that. They were clearly the best team all year, but there were a few games (Baltimore and Philly) where they did not play very well, and managed to hang on and win. That's to their credit; don't get me wrong. But I don't personally make a whole lot of distinction between 16-0 and 14-2. If you were comparing two pitchers, just because one of them had more perfect games and no-hitters doesn't make him a better pitcher. It's just one factor to be considered.

So winning by 20 points in a playoff game vs. winning by 10 points is more valuable and relevant than going 16-0 vs. 14-2 in the regular season?That seems like mental contortionism to make a point fit into facts. I'm not saying this Pats team is better than that Niners team but to use that as justification seems awfully thin.

 

[timschochet]

My view is that the way you win your playoff games is more important than going undefeated in the regular season. I think lots of luck is involved in going undefeated, and the Pats had that. They were clearly the best team all year, but there were a few games (Baltimore and Philly) where they did not play very well, and managed to hang on and win. That's to their credit; don't get me wrong. But I don't personally make a whole lot of distinction between 16-0 and 14-2. If you were comparing two pitchers, just because one of them had more perfect games and no-hitters doesn't make him a better pitcher. It's just one factor to be considered.

So winning by 20 points in a playoff game vs. winning by 10 points is more valuable and relevant than going 16-0 vs. 14-2 in the regular season?That seems like mental contortionism to make a point fit into facts. I'm not saying this Pats team is better than that Niners team but to use that as justification seems awfully thin.

It's not 20 pts vs. 10 pts. and you know it. That 49ers team scored everytime they had the ball. Those playoff games were over by the 2nd qtr. I've never seen a team that dominant in my lifetime, and nobody else has, either. That's why they're #1.

 

[PMENFAN]

PMENFAN,It is strictly a matter of opinion. But be aware that when I rate San Francisco #1 overall, I am neither a 49er fan or a Patriot fan. I am quite positive many, if not most Patriot fans will argue that this team should be considered the greatest of all time, but as they are hardly neutral, their arguments should be given less weight. Denver Bronco fans will argue all day long that John Elway is the greatest QB of all time. I loved him, he's in my top ten, but he's not the greatest, and only they think so.My view is that the way you win your playoff games is more important than going undefeated in the regular season. I think lots of luck is involved in going undefeated, and the Pats had that. They were clearly the best team all year, but there were a few games (Baltimore and Philly) where they did not play very well, and managed to hang on and win. That's to their credit; don't get me wrong. But I don't personally make a whole lot of distinction between 16-0 and 14-2. If you were comparing two pitchers, just because one of them had more perfect games and no-hitters doesn't make him a better pitcher. It's just one factor to be considered.

To further the analogy of the ppitchers. One would have had the best ERA, and have given up the least hits along with those shutouts and no hitters. By all statistical measure, the Pats were a better team than the 9ers. You choose to hang your hat on the playoff point spread, though again earlier in the year you were leading the charge about it being poor sportsmanship to run up the score. I will further disagree that therre is little difference between 16-0 adn 15-1. One is perfection, one is not. I will agree that there is little difference between 15-1 and 13-3. They're not perfection. Many teams have been 15-1, but nobody has ever been 16-0. For me, the difference is between winning and losing. The way the Pats have shut other teams down in the second half is impressive. Again, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me if you think the Pats are #1. I'm just playing along to point out the flawed logic.

 

[David Yudkin]

My view is that the way you win your playoff games is more important than going undefeated in the regular season. I think lots of luck is involved in going undefeated, and the Pats had that. They were clearly the best team all year, but there were a few games (Baltimore and Philly) where they did not play very well, and managed to hang on and win. That's to their credit; don't get me wrong. But I don't personally make a whole lot of distinction between 16-0 and 14-2. If you were comparing two pitchers, just because one of them had more perfect games and no-hitters doesn't make him a better pitcher. It's just one factor to be considered.

So winning by 20 points in a playoff game vs. winning by 10 points is more valuable and relevant than going 16-0 vs. 14-2 in the regular season?That seems like mental contortionism to make a point fit into facts. I'm not saying this Pats team is better than that Niners team but to use that as justification seems awfully thin.

It's not 20 pts vs. 10 pts. and you know it. That 49ers team scored everytime they had the ball. Those playoff games were over by the 2nd qtr. I've never seen a team that dominant in my lifetime, and nobody else has, either. That's why they're #1.

No one is doubting that that 49ers team dominated in the playoffs. They won their 3 playoff games by 3 TD or more. But they only had 2 games like that in the regular season. You've already said essentially that you value post season performance over regular season perfromance so I won't start that up again.By comparison, the Patriots this year won by 3 TD on 10 occasions so far. We can debate if they were running up the score, who the games were against, etc. but the fact remains they had twice as many big wins than the 49ers did (admittedly not at the same point during the season).

 

[PMENFAN]

My view is that the way you win your playoff games is more important than going undefeated in the regular season. I think lots of luck is involved in going undefeated, and the Pats had that. They were clearly the best team all year, but there were a few games (Baltimore and Philly) where they did not play very well, and managed to hang on and win. That's to their credit; don't get me wrong. But I don't personally make a whole lot of distinction between 16-0 and 14-2. If you were comparing two pitchers, just because one of them had more perfect games and no-hitters doesn't make him a better pitcher. It's just one factor to be considered.

So winning by 20 points in a playoff game vs. winning by 10 points is more valuable and relevant than going 16-0 vs. 14-2 in the regular season?That seems like mental contortionism to make a point fit into facts. I'm not saying this Pats team is better than that Niners team but to use that as justification seems awfully thin.

It's not 20 pts vs. 10 pts. and you know it. That 49ers team scored everytime they had the ball. Those playoff games were over by the 2nd qtr. I've never seen a team that dominant in my lifetime, and nobody else has, either. That's why they're #1.

The 9ers beat the #3 seed Vikings 41-13, then the #5 seed Rams 30-3 in the AFCG, and then the Broncos 55-10. The 41-13 game was a late pick6 from Ronnie Lott, followed by a TD run in the fourth. The 30-3 game they were up 21-3 at halftime. And, we know they dominated the Broncos. YOu just say that winning big in the playoffs is more important, but you never say why. I don't see how it carries more weight. The other teams have a lot more to do with it. I believe any of those playoff teams, save for the 9ers, would have lost badly to either the Chargers of Jaguars. They were simply not very good teams. Jim Everett to Flipper Anderson? Did they have defensive players near the caliber of Cromartie, Merriman, Phillips, Castillo and the likes on the Chargers? I think not. Whether you win or lose is the ultimate measure. New England has yet to lose. If they close it out, it begs the question. If San Fran was so dominant, how did they manage to lose? I believe they were 14-2. Yep, adn they were 6-2 against teams with a winning record. You want their dominance over the competition in three games, under ideal conditions, to mask two losses? It just doesn't jive w/ me. http://espn.go.com/nfl/s/epstein/89niners.html

They were a great team, no queston. I'm just pointing out a flaw in your logic. The quality of the compeition just wasn't that good.

 

[freelander]

My view is that the way you win your playoff games is more important than going undefeated in the regular season. I think lots of luck is involved in going undefeated, and the Pats had that. They were clearly the best team all year, but there were a few games (Baltimore and Philly) where they did not play very well, and managed to hang on and win. That's to their credit; don't get me wrong. But I don't personally make a whole lot of distinction between 16-0 and 14-2. If you were comparing two pitchers, just because one of them had more perfect games and no-hitters doesn't make him a better pitcher. It's just one factor to be considered.

So winning by 20 points in a playoff game vs. winning by 10 points is more valuable and relevant than going 16-0 vs. 14-2 in the regular season?That seems like mental contortionism to make a point fit into facts. I'm not saying this Pats team is better than that Niners team but to use that as justification seems awfully thin.

It's not 20 pts vs. 10 pts. and you know it. That 49ers team scored everytime they had the ball. Those playoff games were over by the 2nd qtr. I've never seen a team that dominant in my lifetime, and nobody else has, either. That's why they're #1.

The 9ers beat the #3 seed Vikings 41-13, then the #5 seed Rams 30-3 in the AFCG, and then the Broncos 55-10. The 41-13 game was a late pick6 from Ronnie Lott, followed by a TD run in the fourth. The 30-3 game they were up 21-3 at halftime. And, we know they dominated the Broncos. YOu just say that winning big in the playoffs is more important, but you never say why. I don't see how it carries more weight. The other teams have a lot more to do with it. I believe any of those playoff teams, save for the 9ers, would have lost badly to either the Chargers of Jaguars. They were simply not very good teams. Jim Everett to Flipper Anderson? Did they have defensive players near the caliber of Cromartie, Merriman, Phillips, Castillo and the likes on the Chargers? I think not. Whether you win or lose is the ultimate measure. New England has yet to lose. If they close it out, it begs the question. If San Fran was so dominant, how did they manage to lose? I believe they were 14-2. Yep, adn they were 6-2 against teams with a winning record. You want their dominance over the competition in three games, under ideal conditions, to mask two losses? It just doesn't jive w/ me. http://espn.go.com/nfl/s/epstein/89niners.html

They were a great team, no queston. I'm just pointing out a flaw in your logic. The quality of the compeition just wasn't that good.

Sure its all conjecture ---but you made the point yourself --the '89 49ers had an easier time with a tougher seeding matchup than 2007 NE.

 

[switz]

Oline comparisons are much like team comparisons in that its tough to really say which is the best, but it just seems a little more clear to me because they are smaller, more isolated groups to compare. Here's some data to throw out there to make a case for that Dallas group, but I'll start with some basic data from '07 regarding New England's line. NE didnt lead the league this year in sacks allowed. They gave up 21, which in fact only ranked 5th. The 4 units ahead of them were New Orleans, Cinci, Cleveland and Green Bay. And not surprising, all five teams were primarily PASSING teams. They were all near the top in pass attempts. NO had 652, then New England with 586, followed by Green Bay-578, Cinci-575 and Cleveland-545. And interestingly enough, Arizona, who's 590 pass attempts was tied for 2nd most in the NFL, allowed the 8th lowest sack total. Now, there are good teams and bad teams among this list, but they all threw the ball a ton and none of them gave up very many sacks. Coincidence? Did they all throw the ball so much because their lines were so good at it? Or were there were lines so good at because they threw the ball so much?

Or did the QBs have very quick releases, or very good mobility, and avoided sacks? It's hard to draw a correlation. A few of those teams had QBs with extremely quick releases (ARI,CIN,NO) or good mobility (GB). I honestly don't know enough about Anderson, but I do believe the Browns have had a good OL for a bit. Since I don't follow them that much, I'm not absolutely sure. However, from watching GB,CIN,NO, and NE - it's pretty evident that NE had the best line and allowed the most time for their QB. One thing that I will say helped is that very few teams did anything more than straight up rush, because of the "spread" offense NE played for most of the season. That definitely helped the QB, however I still think the OL is one of the best I've EVER seen.

Im sure we'd all be quick to point to the Lions to blow that logic out of the water, but of course their QB is a sack-receiving machine, much like David Carr, who's former team the Texans only allowed 22 sacks this season btw, 6th least, and only 1 more than New England's dominant line.

at the Kitna comment, that actually made me laugh out loud.

I tend to buy into the thinking that the more you practice something, the better you get at it. So generally speaking, the more often an Oline has to drop back in protection, the more cohesive they'll become and the better protection they will provide. New Orleans Oline is the definition of that logic, attempting the most passes while allowing the fewest sacks.

If you watched the games, Brees never had the amount of time Brady had this year, he just threw quick passes.

Dallas' sack totals from the years beginning in '92 were pretty consistent. They allowed 23 in '92, 29 in '93, 20 in '94( when Allen joined the team), 18 in '95, and 19 in '96. Those years pretty much encompass Dallas' run of dominance, imo. Now, they threw the ball less than other teams because they were such a dominant run team, so we could expect the sack total to be lower based on the lower # of attempts. But again, as suggested by the data provided in the preceding paragraph, # of attempts do not automatically effect # of sacks allowed as logic would otherwise suggest. Those Dallas Olines had some good sack totals, despite it not really being their strong suit. They were much more of a running team. But if you recall, Aikman generally had all day to throw back then, much like Brady has today.

And IMO the reason Aikman had time to throw, is that very few teams played to defend the pass, they were trying to shed blockers to get to the RB, not trying to race upfield toward the QB. While Brady benefitted from the spread O forcing teams to simplify their pass rush, and use more DBs, Aikman simply didn't face much pass rush at all as defenses were playing the run.

Here's the thing. Ive got it in my head that those Dallas lines were more dominant because the way they went about it was just more physically impressive. They consistently blew teams off the line, and Emmitt would just run threw these gaping holes for huge chunks of yardage. It was incredible how big they were, and how often they would manhandle teams up front, despite everyone in the stadium knowing what was coming. Its a little bit like someone making a case that the 85 Bears were a more dominant team than the 89 Niners because they just physically dominated teams more. Theyd smack you around until you couldnt take anymore. The Niners and Montana would just sling it around and kill you with efficiency. Which is more dominant? The team than smacks you around all day, or the team that scrambles your brain into submission? Same with an Oline. Would you rather be run over all day, or just kept away from the cookie jar? Me, Id rather keep reaching for the cookie jar, not matter how impossible it may seem to reach.

I can see you're POV. I think it would be easy to say either one was more dominant, but as you say, their specialties differed. Regardless, NE has had one of the best OLs in the league for a few years now, and I think this year they stepped up, and were one of the best all time.

 

[switz]

I do know that my perception of watching the Pats this year is that for me the most impressive thing that tops all others was the inability of teams to pur pressure on Brady. I contrast that to my Steelers, where Big Ben had people in his face every week. If I could steal one part of this New England team and put it on my own, its that offensive line. Prior to this year, I would have said that the 92-95 Cowboys had the most dominant offensive line of all time. Not any more.

In responding to the above bolded quote, I wouldnt change my opinion on the dominance of those 90s Dallas Olines if I were you. They were imo far more dominant than this New England line. And this NE line is very good. They give Brady all day to throw quite often. That Dallas line, specifically the one that included Larry Allen beginning in '94, was the biggest, baddest, most road-grating smack you upside the head and steamroll you like road kill bunch of over-sized steakhouse grubbin' collection of thugs Ive ever seen in my life. Erik Williams, Larry Allen, and Nate Newton all on the same team? With I believe Stepnoski and Tuinei filling out the 5. That line absolutely mauled people. Dont change your thinking there.

Of course, because if people knew that NE's OLine this year was the best ever, then it might slightly diminish Brady's accomplishments Pats had what, three Pro Bowlers on the OL this year, and 4 of the 5 were high draft picks, the only one that wasn't Koppen was a steal, and made the ProBowl.

The OL this year and the past 3-4 has been a very very very good, if not the best in the league OL.

On the note of the post, they haven't won the SB yet... not that I doubt they will, but let's at least wait until they do. Then I'd have to say no one could argue that they are the best team of all time.

SWITZ

Spoiler

I think it would be perfectly clear that if they win the SB, they are the only team to go undefeated in 16 games, then the playoffs. No one could argue about them being the greatest team. While other teams may have been better in one aspect or another, none of them did what the Pats did. And even if one of those teams could beat the Pats head to head, it would be unlikely that they would dominate them, and as the Pats would have the edge in dominance over all other teams, you'd have to say the PAts were the "best."

 

[twitch]

Oline comparisons are much like team comparisons in that its tough to really say which is the best, but it just seems a little more clear to me because they are smaller, more isolated groups to compare. Here's some data to throw out there to make a case for that Dallas group, but I'll start with some basic data from '07 regarding New England's line. NE didnt lead the league this year in sacks allowed. They gave up 21, which in fact only ranked 5th. The 4 units ahead of them were New Orleans, Cinci, Cleveland and Green Bay. And not surprising, all five teams were primarily PASSING teams. They were all near the top in pass attempts. NO had 652, then New England with 586, followed by Green Bay-578, Cinci-575 and Cleveland-545. And interestingly enough, Arizona, who's 590 pass attempts was tied for 2nd most in the NFL, allowed the 8th lowest sack total. Now, there are good teams and bad teams among this list, but they all threw the ball a ton and none of them gave up very many sacks. Coincidence? Did they all throw the ball so much because their lines were so good at it? Or were there were lines so good at because they threw the ball so much?

Or did the QBs have very quick releases, or very good mobility, and avoided sacks? It's hard to draw a correlation. A few of those teams had QBs with extremely quick releases (ARI,CIN,NO) or good mobility (GB). I honestly don't know enough about Anderson, but I do believe the Browns have had a good OL for a bit. Since I don't follow them that much, I'm not absolutely sure. However, from watching GB,CIN,NO, and NE - it's pretty evident that NE had the best line and allowed the most time for their QB. One thing that I will say helped is that very few teams did anything more than straight up rush, because of the "spread" offense NE played for most of the season. That definitely helped the QB, however I still think the OL is one of the best I've EVER seen.

Im sure we'd all be quick to point to the Lions to blow that logic out of the water, but of course their QB is a sack-receiving machine, much like David Carr, who's former team the Texans only allowed 22 sacks this season btw, 6th least, and only 1 more than New England's dominant line.

at the Kitna comment, that actually made me laugh out loud.

I tend to buy into the thinking that the more you practice something, the better you get at it. So generally speaking, the more often an Oline has to drop back in protection, the more cohesive they'll become and the better protection they will provide. New Orleans Oline is the definition of that logic, attempting the most passes while allowing the fewest sacks.

If you watched the games, Brees never had the amount of time Brady had this year, he just threw quick passes.

Dallas' sack totals from the years beginning in '92 were pretty consistent. They allowed 23 in '92, 29 in '93, 20 in '94( when Allen joined the team), 18 in '95, and 19 in '96. Those years pretty much encompass Dallas' run of dominance, imo. Now, they threw the ball less than other teams because they were such a dominant run team, so we could expect the sack total to be lower based on the lower # of attempts. But again, as suggested by the data provided in the preceding paragraph, # of attempts do not automatically effect # of sacks allowed as logic would otherwise suggest. Those Dallas Olines had some good sack totals, despite it not really being their strong suit. They were much more of a running team. But if you recall, Aikman generally had all day to throw back then, much like Brady has today.

And IMO the reason Aikman had time to throw, is that very few teams played to defend the pass, they were trying to shed blockers to get to the RB, not trying to race upfield toward the QB. While Brady benefitted from the spread O forcing teams to simplify their pass rush, and use more DBs, Aikman simply didn't face much pass rush at all as defenses were playing the run.

Here's the thing. Ive got it in my head that those Dallas lines were more dominant because the way they went about it was just more physically impressive. They consistently blew teams off the line, and Emmitt would just run threw these gaping holes for huge chunks of yardage. It was incredible how big they were, and how often they would manhandle teams up front, despite everyone in the stadium knowing what was coming. Its a little bit like someone making a case that the 85 Bears were a more dominant team than the 89 Niners because they just physically dominated teams more. Theyd smack you around until you couldnt take anymore. The Niners and Montana would just sling it around and kill you with efficiency. Which is more dominant? The team than smacks you around all day, or the team that scrambles your brain into submission? Same with an Oline. Would you rather be run over all day, or just kept away from the cookie jar? Me, Id rather keep reaching for the cookie jar, not matter how impossible it may seem to reach.

I can see you're POV. I think it would be easy to say either one was more dominant, but as you say, their specialties differed. Regardless, NE has had one of the best OLs in the league for a few years now, and I think this year they stepped up, and were one of the best all time.

good stuff here, Switz. many fine points all of which Id fall in line with. I think Cleveland's situation was a little unique to the other teams in that the personnel itself seemed to be a significant upgrade with Thomas and Steinbach being added. Would explain the uncertainty in gauging Anderson's play, release, etc. I think that Oline was maybe the most underrated of this group. Lewis had a pretty nice year running the ball as well. But the QB quick release is a good intangible that didnt show up in those sacks stats which I didnt touch on, but absolutely contributes to a guy like Brees being sacked so little. quality breakdown here on your part.

 

[David Yudkin]

The Pats have a chance to add to their list of records if they win the SB . . .

Most playoff wins in a decade:

Patriots (2000s) -- 14

Cowboys (1970s) -- 14

Steelers (1970s) -- 14

49ers (1980s) -- 13

Cowboys (1990s) -- 12

Redskins (1980s) -- 11

Bills (1990s) -- 10

Packers (1960s) -- 9

Packers (1990s) -- 9

 

[snowmonkey501]

 

[Sheriff66]

Pats still made history, just as the biggest chokers to ever lace them up.

 

[Johnny Ice]

Oh how the mighty fall.

 

[scott72]

 

[DawgPoundNJ]

They were beaten on that last drive like a rented mule, and I liked it.

New England Patriots: Official Biznitch of the Manning family.

 

[weasel3515]

Isn't this the same how USC was proclaimed the best college football team of college football history three years ago...only to lose to Texas in the Rose Bowl? Funny how history repeats itself. Now the 2007 Patriots are just another good team in the NFL, nothing more.

 

[Shrek]

Sublime. Truly sublime.

 

[timschochet]

Isn't this the same how USC was proclaimed the best college football team of college football history three years ago...only to lose to Texas in the Rose Bowl? Funny how history repeats itself. Now the 2007 Patriots are just another good team in the NFL, nothing more.

Neither of these comments are accurate.1. The Trojan team that lost to Texas was the best college football game I've ever seen, period. The loss doesn't change that, at least for me.2. I argued earlier in this thread that the Pats were not the best team ever; I personally ranked them at #4. They're still in the top ten for me; one of the great teams of all time. 18-1, one loss doesn't change that. I thought Patriot fans were way overboard last week, and now I think you're going in the other direction. This team is still better than most of the Superbowl champions in the last 20 years.

 

[weasel3515]

Isn't this the same how USC was proclaimed the best college football team of college football history three years ago...only to lose to Texas in the Rose Bowl? Funny how history repeats itself. Now the 2007 Patriots are just another good team in the NFL, nothing more.

Neither of these comments are accurate.1. The Trojan team that lost to Texas was the best college football game I've ever seen, period. The loss doesn't change that, at least for me.2. I argued earlier in this thread that the Pats were not the best team ever; I personally ranked them at #4. They're still in the top ten for me; one of the great teams of all time. 18-1, one loss doesn't change that. I thought Patriot fans were way overboard last week, and now I think you're going in the other direction. This team is still better than most of the Superbowl champions in the last 20 years.

Glad to see some perspective here. But both comments ARE accurate. Both teams (USC and the Patriots) were proclaimed by the media to be the best ever at their respective levels. Both lost when it mattered most. It shows that both had flaws, especially on defense. For USC it was that their schedule was soft and that they had the 47th ranked defense nationally with a pathetic conference. For the Patriots, it was that their defense was aging by the minute and it caught up with them. Don't get me wrong, any team that goes 18-0 is worthy of recognition...just not the best of all time.

 

[Das Boot]

if they win it all they'll have a great case.

if they don't win the superbowl they'll be the most disappointing team evah.

We now have our answer.

 

[Tanner9919]

Pats still made history, just as the biggest chokers to ever lace them up.

not fair to call the Pats chokers, the Giants didn't win because NE choked, the Giants earned it..