This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I really don't give SOS much of a factor in rankings. You don't determine who is on your schedule. And football is more of a momentum sport than anything. By momentum I mean that once a team finds something that works, they stick with it until someone stops them. Once someone stops them, future opponents copycat those tactics and do it very well which often results in a team losing that momentum from then on. Classic example is the Rams early this decade. They looked unstoppable. 500 points scored in 3 straight years. Then they faced the Patriots. The Patriots got extremely physical with them. They bumped them hard on their routes. They disrupted their timing. You heard from coaches around the NFL after that game saying "My god, I never knew you could do that to them!" After that, teams started copycatting that gameplan. And the Rams were no longer the Rams.Its the same thing here. As a great team tears through its schedule, they expose all kinds of holes in their opponents that other teams can copycat. Some might say the 99 Rams schedule was weak. I'd argue the Rams exposed tons of holes in their opponents, and had that not happened, their opponents would have been able to have more success.In short, I think SOS is a terrible way to rank teams in football.
I think the key is you absolutely must win time of possession big if you want to defeat these Patriots. If Brady and Moss get their usual number of drives, they will kill you. You need to control the clock. Make them look up at the scoreboard and its the third quarter and they've only had 4 drives in the entire game.
I think that's one part of it, but not the only part, given how quickly the Pats seem to be able to drive down the field. I'm curious to know how many plays their average scoring drive consists of.
well, if they happen to meet green bay in the superbowl, would there be a single 'good' team in the league they haven't played?here's the list and you tell me if anybody is left off besides green bay:san diegoclevelandcincysuperbowl champion indy (possibly twice)pittdallasgiantsthen they also beat up their chumpy division and a couple other chumps.you want to name me a team that hasn't had any sub .500 teams on it's schedule?
I can't see considering them the best team of all time unless their current course changes. The team having the most successful season is very possible.... but "best" which I take to mean strongest team of all time, I don't think they get more than passing consideration against the Bears... possibly also against the 49ers though that one is closer.The best things the Pats have going for them in an argument are margin of victory and the possibility of a perfect season. But they have some things going against them. They don't have a dominant defense to go along with a dominant offense. Their defense is good compared to their peers this year, but it isn't close to the level the Bears or 49ers had. Probably the biggest thing to me is that I think a good argument can be waged that there wasn't a peer that was in the same class as the Bears or 49ers, but that a good argument can be waged that the Pats have a peer in the Colts. Let me explain what I consider a peer. A peer is a team that if they play you is going to have a pretty decent chance to win... probably taking at the very least 35-40% of the games in a large sample of games, maybe more. I don't think the Bears or 49ers had any peers. Both of them did suffer 1 or 2 losses, but I don't think the teams that beat them were on par with those great teams to where they could win with any significant consistency. It just happened they caught them on one of those 10-20% of the times they could beat them.On margin of victory, while the Pats margin of victory is more than the other teams in the running... that will definitely lose some weight in the argument if part of that margin is from running up the score. I have no doubt both the Bears and 49ers could have run up the score on teams like the Pats are doing and closed the gap with the Pats. Another factor that I think needs to be taken into account with MOV is team tendencies to run or pass. Put simply, I expect passing teams to score more, though they may not dominate the game as much as a running team. So if a predominantly rushing team has the same MOV as a passing team, I think that indicates the rushing team is more dominant since being able to run more often takes control of the game and it's harder to accumulate those same points by running, so it represents the greater achievement.I discount the '89 49ers MOV when comparing it against the Bears for this reason, and the Pats would get the same thing for the same reason. Moreso even as the 49ers actually ran it more than they passed it, while the Pats are throwing more than running.I could easily see the Pats slotting in #2 or #3... but the Colts game where they didn't really distinguish themselves to me from a depleted Colts team, is probably what would hold them back from overtaking the Bears in my mind as "best" team. Most successful is still in reach, but best is unlikely unless they utterly plaster a reasonably full strength Colts squad in the playoffs.
Okay, so MOV is important, but it doesn't count if you "run up the score"? Tell me, how do you get a wide mMOV witout running up the score? Does it become permissible to run up the score in the playoffs? Just curious where your argument is comeing from. That niners team surely ran up the score, as did the Bears. If you dont' objectively say you shut it down at 21 points up, and call anything beyond running it up. Or 30, or wherever the cutoff is, you're being inconsistent. All great teams run up the score. It's part of greatness. That depleted Colts team? What about the Pats missing Eugene Wilson for the bulk of the season? What about Harrison and Seymour missing the first 5 and 7 weeks? How about Stephen Neal missing last nights game? How about the top 2 RB's missing signifigant action, with both out for a stretch and Morris gone for the season? It's football. You go to battle with the healthy guys. Everybody has injuries. Just because the Colts have gone years without any of significance doesn't mean they don't occur. Dominate by pass, or dominate by run, it's domination. Yes, the Bears had a better defense. But, they had an offense that was very mediocre. Pats D is far from mediocre. And, as for the peer. The two teams you cite played in an era where the league was full of bad teams. Now, we play in an era where it's designed to have balance top to bottom. Yet still the Pats have put together a team that is in the discussion. Are they the best team ever? There's a lot of football to play. They're one of them, no question.
I wouldn't overlook the NY Giants, week 17..that game will have a playoff atmosphere to it...Giants Stadium will be ROCKIN'!now, Brandon Jacobs is the type of back that can wear down the Pats front seven by pounding the ball at them repeatedly.I'd give the G-men a BETTER shot at beating the Patriots, than I would the Steelers. Bellichick has always had the Steelers mojo, the Pats almost ALWAYS beat them, and this year should be no different. Heck,the Steelers just lost to the lowly JETS..
the Giants have the best d-line in the game, and the most sacks...I don't think the Pats are nearly as good as the '85 Bears were, or the '89 Niners...
Just shows how good the AFC East Really is. The Jets should have beaten the Giants as well, but Pennington threw a late pick costing them the game. Miami only lost to the Giants 13-10, IIRC. Buffalo lost two on last second kicks. Miami is not that good. I'll give that. But, the Jets are usually competitive, and so is Buff. Now, do I think the Giants can bean NE? Has Ellie Manning ever played a good game in the cold? I can't think of one. He's geat in the early fall, or has been historically. But, when the Winter approaches, his stats fall of the cliff. Pitt is good, but inconsistent to say the least. Losses to Den and NYJets? Can they beat NE? Absolutely. Will they? I'm anot a prognosticator.I wouldn't overlook the NY Giants, week 17..that game will have a playoff atmosphere to it...Giants Stadium will be ROCKIN'!now, Brandon Jacobs is the type of back that can wear down the Pats front seven by pounding the ball at them repeatedly.I'd give the G-men a BETTER shot at beating the Patriots, than I would the Steelers. Bellichick has always had the Steelers mojo, the Pats almost ALWAYS beat them, and this year should be no different. Heck,the Steelers just lost to the lowly JETS..the Giants have the best d-line in the game, and the most sacks...
I find fault with this argument because the Pats defense has not been required to do much. IMO, this does not mean they are not a dominant defense, only that they have no reason to go and beat people up when they are ahead by 30 points.And for comparison, the 07 Pats are allowing 15.7 PPG. The 85 Bears allowed 12.4 PPG and the 84 49ers allowed 14.2 PPG. Clearly the offenses on those teams could not match the Pats on offense. SF scored 29.7 PPG, the Bears 28.5 PPG, and this NE team is averaging 41.1 PPG.
Started to reply but then decided it isn't worth it. No one should need explained how teams can score points early or through play calling that isn't meant to run up the score... or why it is that the Pats having players miss OTHER games than the Colts game doesn't mean the Pats performance against the Colts should be modified... or be saying that a #2 scoring offense is "very mediocre" while a #6 scoring defense is "far from mediocre"...I'm just not going to deal with the Patriot colored glasses.ETA: Doug has updated the stats and the Pats are moving up in defense after this week's games. As I said, if they change their course things can change for them, but it's still ridiculous to say the Bears had a very mediocre offense while calling the Pats defense far from mediocre.
pro-football-reference.com
Given the Patriots mentality in running up the score, I'm not sure that I buy that their defense is letting up. I could maybe see where the Pats might be pulling defensive starters before the 49ers or Bears had been, though with as long as they've left their offense in, I also wouldn't be surprised if it turned out they haven't been pulling their defense earlier than the other teams did.
Being the team that would win the greatest percentage of games against the other great teams once you account for differences in era, training technology, etc.
My point was that in games that are not close, there isn o pressure to HAVE to shut down the other team.The 85 Bears played 5 games that ended up within 10 points (in addition to losing a game). They ended up facing 6 teams in the regular season with 10 or more wins.GregR said:
yeah and you also think the giants have a good shot at the pats this year, which speaks to the quality your football judgement.I had to listen to this same crap about washington, too.pats will win by 30+.mark it down, and start your mea culpa thread after the game -- most of these contrarians disappear down a hole afterwards.I'd be curious to see how many plays the pats were in nickel this year vs a team like the '85 bears.Tanner9919 said:
The NFL is more about coaching than anything else. Belichick has such a great influence on everything the team does. This is unlike baseball or basketball where the manager has far less of an impact. And then there's the issue that Belichick apparently was the only one on the planet that didn't think Randy Moss was washed-up. If everyone else is that stupid, no-one is ever going to stop Belichick. He's going to keep winning super bowls interminably if the rest of the league keeps handing him HOF talent.ninerfanatic492000 said:
If not, then definitely nearly.Tanner9919 said:
You forgot one point.Most TD record for a QBMost TD record for a WRPerfect seasonCheated in one game
