Team of the Decade race after Super Bowl 52 (1 Viewer)

[Riversco]

The race for Team of the Decade with 2 super bowls to go...lots of potential for endless debates...

Patriots: 2 wins (Seahawks, Falcons), 2 losses (Giants, Eagles)
Still in the lead, but they would have wrapped it up by defeating the Eagles.  No one else has 2 wins or 4 appearances. They clinch if they win one more. They clinch if none of the 1 win teams listed below win 1 of the last 2 except the Seahawks, whom they hold a head-to-head tiebreaker over.  They have a wide range of scenarios where they would probably clinch a share by never appearing in either of the last 2 super bowls, although some might crown them if they tied another teams with 2 rings because the Patriots appeared in 4 games. There would be a lot of debate.

Seahawks: 1 win (vs Broncos), 1 loss (vs Patriots)
They hold a tiebreaker over the Broncos but lose a tiebreaker to the Patriots.  Its complicated.  They clinch if they win the last 2.  However, if they appear in the last 2 super bowls, beat the Patriots in 1 of them and lose to someone other than the Patriots the other, they would probably claim a share, especially if they blow out the Patriots.  If they appear in the last 2 super bowls and win one but it is not against the Patriots, the head-to-head loss to the Patriots is probably used as a tiebreaker to crown the Patriots.

Broncos: 1 win (vs Panthers), 1 loss (vs Seahawks)
They clinch if they win the last 2.  If they appear in both and win 1, they would clinch a share with the Patriots unless the loss is to the Eagles and then the Eagles would clinch by holding wins over the Patriots and Broncos. There is a scenario where the Broncos and Seahawks meet in the last 2 super bowls and split them.  Then the Patriots, Seahawks, and Broncos all finish 2-2. The Patriots hold a win over the Seahawks, the Broncos hold 1 win over the Seahawks, and the Seahawks hold 2 wins over the Broncos.  This might just be a 3 way share but maybe you can figure it out.

Eagles: 1 win (vs Patriots)
Win the last 2 and they clinch.  If they appear in both, win 1, and lose to someone other than the Patriots or Broncos, they probably clinch because only the Patriots and Eagles would have 2 rings and the Eagles would hold the head-to-head tiebreaker, plus they would have appeared in 3 in a row.  If they appear in both, and lose to the Broncos and win the other, then I think you wind up with a 3 way share between the Patriots, Eagles, and Broncos and a lot of arguing because  you have wins and losses between the teams.  If they appear in 1 more and win, they MIGHT clinch because they hold the tiebreaker over the Patriots UNLESS the other super bowl is won by a team with 1 win already,then the Eagles get a share instead.  However, the 2 extra appearances by the Patriots might sway opinion to give the Patriots the crown despite the head to head win or you could still wind up with a share between the Eagles and Patriots.  Does that makes sense?

Giants: 1 win (vs Patriots)

See Eagles.  Giants and Eagles are in ALMOST in the exact same boat because both beat the Patriots in their only appearance.  The only difference is the Eagles have a stronger case by appearing in 3 straight which is a great achievement in itself.

Packers and Ravens (1-0)
They clinch by winning the last 2 super bowls.  If they appear in both and split them, they might be looking at a share depending on if the loss is to someone with 1-2 rings already.  But they can never hold a tiebreaker over any more than 1 team so they are a little weaker than the Eagles and Giants.

49ers: 1 loss (vs Ravens) and Panthers: 1 loss (vs Broncos)
They need to win the last 2 but that only gets them a share with the Patriots UNLESS they win at least 1 vs the Patriots.  Then they hold a tiebreaker over the Patriots and clinch.  Yes, the 49ers can STILL be team of the decade.  All it requires is for Jimmy G. to win 2 straight including 1 win over the Patriots.

Falcons: 1 loss (Patriots)
If they win the last 2 and NEITHER are against the Patriots, the Patriots clinch due to head to head tiebreaker.  If the Falcons win the last 2 and win ONE against the Patriots, they remove the head to head tiebreaker and clinch a share.  If the Falcons win the last 2 and win BOTH against the Patriots, the Falcons are team of the decade because only the Falcons and Patriots have 2 wins and the Falcons beat them twice.

Steelers: 1 loss (Packers)
Unfortunately, they cannot beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl, so they have the bleakest set of outcomes.  If they win the last 2 super bowls, they clinch a share with the Patriots. I think in this situation, both would disavow their share rather than be linked together as co-champs in the history books.

 

[JuniorGong]

Pats have 4 SB appearances and the best regular season won-loss record for the decade. Unless a team that already was won once rattled off the next two there really isn’t a debate.

 

[[icon]]

New England has won 12-14 games annually going 102-26, won their division every year (8yrs), gone to 7 STRAIGHT AFC championship games, and have gone to 4 Super Bowls, winning two. 

If your measure is purely “who won the most superbowls”, then that’s fine. It’s wrong but it’s fine   I prefer sustained dominance over the course of the decade.... and right now New England is in a class of their own. 

I’m not sure any team CAN pull even if NE continues to win 11-12 games, win the AFC east, let alone go to another conf Champ game or super bowl. 

Seattle? 80-48 with 4 Division Titles, Only 2 conference championship game appearances, and 2 superbowls (1-1). If seattle rattled off two perfect seasons, New England would have to go 5-11 both years to even make it a debate. Let’s be real, they’re not even within striking distance.  Nobody is.

 

[Cjw_55106]

This isn’t a contest. No idea how you think there is room for “endless debates”. 

 

[NREC34]

There’d be a civil war probably if anyone other than NE got it. 

 

[zftcg]

You guys do know this isn't an actual thing, right? There's no "clinching", there's no "civil war if anyone else gets it". It's just something for a bunch of jamokes in a bar (or, ahem, on a message board) to argue over.

 

[babydemon90]

New England has won 12-14 games annually going 102-26, won their division every year (8yrs), gone to 7 STRAIGHT AFC championship games, and have gone to 4 Super Bowls, winning two. 

If your measure is purely “who won the most superbowls”, then that’s fine. It’s wrong but it’s fine   I prefer sustained dominance over the course of the decade.... and right now New England is in a class of their own. 

I’m not sure any team CAN pull even if NE continues to win 11-12 games, win the AFC east, let alone go to another conf Champ game or super bowl. 

Seattle? 80-48 with 4 Division Titles, Only 2 conference championship game appearances, and 2 superbowls (1-1). If seattle rattled off two perfect seasons, New England would have to go 5-11 both years to even make it a debate. Let’s be real, they’re not even within striking distance.  Nobody is.

yea, you'd pretty need a full on collapse plus a strong showing by an already strong contender.  Even then I doubt it, NE has been the most dominant team by a good margin this decade.

 

[Riversco]

This isn’t a contest. No idea how you think there is room for “endless debates”. 

Oh the debates will be endless im sure unless someone wins 3.  

 

[bostonfred]

You guys do know this isn't an actual thing, right? There's no "clinching", there's no "civil war if anyone else gets it". It's just something for a bunch of jamokes in a bar (or, ahem, on a message board) to argue over.

Absolutely.  But it's insane that Brady's patriots were already the best team of the previous decade.

Consider this - in 2010, Brady had two regular season mvps and two Superbowl mvps, held the single season touchdown record, and was already tied with Joe Montana with 33 game winning drives for 8th in NFL history.

Under Brady, the patriots had won 3 Superbowls and gone to a fourth, set the league record for consecutive wins (18), consecutive postseason wins (Brady was 10-0 to start his career which is insane), consecutive wins across seasons (21), wins in a single season (18) and offensive scoring, among others.  

That's already a hall of fame career and the team of the decade. 

The following year, Brady surpassed Dan Marino's 37 year old record for single season passing yards, has led the team to the afc championship literally every single year, has taken them to four Superbowls, won two titles and has two Superbowl mvps and a regular season mvps. 

Either decade alone would put him in the hall of fame and in the discussion for best quarterback of all time. 

And he's not even done yet. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I believe this is going to be the decade without a team of the decade.

 

[[icon]]

Absolutely.  But it's insane that Brady's patriots were already the best team of the previous decade.

Consider this - in 2010, Brady had two regular season mvps and two Superbowl mvps, held the single season touchdown record, and was already tied with Joe Montana with 33 game winning drives for 8th in NFL history.

Under Brady, the patriots had won 3 Superbowls and gone to a fourth, set the league record for consecutive wins (18), consecutive postseason wins (Brady was 10-0 to start his career which is insane), consecutive wins across seasons (21), wins in a single season (18) and offensive scoring, among others.  

That's already a hall of fame career and the team of the decade. 

The following year, Brady surpassed Dan Marino's 37 year old record for single season passing yards, has led the team to the afc championship literally every single year, has taken them to four Superbowls, won two titles and has two Superbowl mvps and a regular season mvps. 

Either decade alone would put him in the hall of fame and in the discussion for best quarterback of all time. 

And he's not even done yet. 

Yeah that's kinda crazy. Brady has effectively had a two decade long career, where either decade in it's own right is HOF worthy.

The number of players who can say that is a very very short list... maybe no others? Rice's 2nd decade wasn't really HOF worthy. Montana only had one decade of greatness in him and fizzled out well before getting his 2nd in.  Favre had the longevity but his 2nd decade wasn't really HOF worthy. Marino almost made it 2 decades but his 2nd was not HOF worthy. 

Would be an interesting discussion for a thread actually... @bostonfred, you wanna fire it up? 

 

[zftcg]

Yeah that's kinda crazy. Brady has effectively had a two decade long career, where either decade in it's own right is HOF worthy.

The number of players who can say that is a very very short list... maybe no others? Rice's 2nd decade wasn't really HOF worthy. Montana only had one decade of greatness in him and fizzled out well before getting his 2nd in.  Favre had the longevity but his 2nd decade wasn't really HOF worthy. Marino almost made it 2 decades but his 2nd was not HOF worthy.

The dirty secret of Marino's career is that he got off to an insanely fast start -- more than 4K yards and 30+ TDs in each of his first three seasons (including 5K/48 in 1984), three straight Pro Bowls/All-Pro teams -- and then was nothing special the remaining 13 years. In that latter stretch he had three 4K seasons, threw for 30 TDs once, made the Pro Bowl five times and never made an All-Pro team. And of course, after reaching the Super Bowl in his second year, he never made it back. I suspect without those first few years, we'd regard him the way we do Phillip Rivers today.

 

[bostonfred]

Yeah that's kinda crazy. Brady has effectively had a two decade long career, where either decade in it's own right is HOF worthy.

The number of players who can say that is a very very short list... maybe no others? Rice's 2nd decade wasn't really HOF worthy. Montana only had one decade of greatness in him and fizzled out well before getting his 2nd in.  Favre had the longevity but his 2nd decade wasn't really HOF worthy. Marino almost made it 2 decades but his 2nd was not HOF worthy. 

Would be an interesting discussion for a thread actually... @bostonfred, you wanna fire it up? 

I don't think most people really want a new thread about how great Brady is.  But when you have people talking about Brady vs Rodgers or Brady vs manning or Brady vs Montana, consider this:

Montana and Steve young combined to win five Superbowls, 5 conference championships and went to ten conference championships. 

Favre and Rodgers have two Superbowls, three conference championships and been to seven nfccgs.

Manning and luck have combined for two Superbowls, four conference championships and have been to six conference championship games. 

Brady alone has 5 Superbowls, 8 conference championships and went to 12 conference championships.

Favre Rodgers manning and luck combined have 4 Superbowls, 7 conference championships and have been to 13 conference championship games. 

That's bonkers. 

 

[Arodin]

The best way to get an "endless debate over the team of the decade" is not to focus on actual teams at all.

Instead, it's to ask whether the 2000 Superbowl, occuring after the '99 eeason, counts for the team of the 90's or the team of the 00's.  For that matter, is 2000 the last year or first year of a decade?  

THAT, my friends, will be an endless debate even if New England wins the next two Super Bowls.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don't think most people really want a new thread about how great Brady is. 

 

[QuizGuy66]

Browns are the only team with a perfect record this decade so the title should be theirs.

-QG

 

[Lehigh98]

Absolutely.  But it's insane that Brady's patriots were already the best team of the previous decade.

Consider this - in 2010, Brady had two regular season mvps and two Superbowl mvps, held the single season touchdown record, and was already tied with Joe Montana with 33 game winning drives for 8th in NFL history.

Under Brady, the patriots had won 3 Superbowls and gone to a fourth, set the league record for consecutive wins (18), consecutive postseason wins (Brady was 10-0 to start his career which is insane), consecutive wins across seasons (21), wins in a single season (18) and offensive scoring, among others.  

That's already a hall of fame career and the team of the decade. 

The following year, Brady surpassed Dan Marino's 37 year old record for single season passing yards, has led the team to the afc championship literally every single year, has taken them to four Superbowls, won two titles and has two Superbowl mvps and a regular season mvps. 

Either decade alone would put him in the hall of fame and in the discussion for best quarterback of all time. 

And he's not even done yet. 

Ugh, already looking forward to the next decade.   :X

 

[Thunderlips]

New England has won 12-14 games annually going 102-26, won their division every year (8yrs), gone to 7 STRAIGHT AFC championship games, and have gone to 4 Super Bowls, winning two. 

If your measure is purely “who won the most superbowls”, then that’s fine. It’s wrong but it’s fine   I prefer sustained dominance over the course of the decade.... and right now New England is in a class of their own. 

I’m not sure any team CAN pull even if NE continues to win 11-12 games, win the AFC east, let alone go to another conf Champ game or super bowl. 

Seattle? 80-48 with 4 Division Titles, Only 2 conference championship game appearances, and 2 superbowls (1-1). If seattle rattled off two perfect seasons, New England would have to go 5-11 both years to even make it a debate. Let’s be real, they’re not even within striking distance.  Nobody is.

PHI goes to the next two Super Bowls and beats NE in both of them?

 

[[icon]]

PHI goes to the next two Super Bowls and beats NE in both of them?

69-43 thus far 

3 Division titles 

1 conference championship 

1 Super Bowl win 

still not in the discussion when talking about the entire decade. 

 

[Thunderlips]

69-43 thus far 

3 Division titles 

1 conference championship 

1 Super Bowl win 

still not in the discussion when talking about the entire decade. 

What if Philly goes 16-0 both seasons...New England squeaks in both seasons with an 8-8 record and Philly just whups them with a combined score of like 98-7 or so in the two remaining Super Bowls of the decade?

 

[zftcg]

69-43 thus far 

3 Division titles 

1 conference championship 

1 Super Bowl win 

still not in the discussion when talking about the entire decade. 

I don't really care about arbitrary cutoffs like "Team of the Decade", but is any other franchise in a better position than Philly to dominate the next few years? They have a franchise QB under a rookie deal for another few years, a bunch of other promising players on below-market contracts, one of the game's best coaches (and DCs) and a solid GM as well. All of the other teams that have dominated the past few years (NE, Seattle, Denver, Pitt, GB) are closer to the ends of their runs than the beginning. Hell, Seattle may fall off a cliff as soon as next season. 

Falcons also have a promising core, but Ryan and Julio are getting up there. Rams show a lot of promise, but they haven't accomplished anything yet (and Wentz >>>>> Goff).

If you're buying stock in one NFL team over the next five years, I don't see any other team you would want to target ahead of Philly.

 

[Anarchy99]

Yeah that's kinda crazy. Brady has effectively had a two decade long career, where either decade in it's own right is HOF worthy.

The number of players who can say that is a very very short list... maybe no others? Rice's 2nd decade wasn't really HOF worthy. Montana only had one decade of greatness in him and fizzled out well before getting his 2nd in.  Favre had the longevity but his 2nd decade wasn't really HOF worthy. Marino almost made it 2 decades but his 2nd was not HOF worthy. 

Would be an interesting discussion for a thread actually... @bostonfred, you wanna fire it up? 

So should Kobe make the HOF twice? As number 8 . . . and number 24?

Brady's individual numbers are better over the second half of his career (at least so far). I bet a lot of people would be happy to saw TB12 in half. Would he then be TB6 x 2?

 

[ShamrockPride]

The best way to get an "endless debate over the team of the decade" is not to focus on actual teams at all.

Instead, it's to ask whether the 2000 Superbowl, occuring after the '99 eeason, counts for the team of the 90's or the team of the 00's.  For that matter, is 2000 the last year or first year of a decade?  

THAT, my friends, will be an endless debate even if New England wins the next two Super Bowls.

Yes, the super bowl gets attached the with season before. 2000 Super Bowl is part of the 1999 season.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Sad. Pats could've been the team of the 2020's too if they kept Jimmy.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I bet a lot of people would be happy to saw TB12 in half.

 

[[icon]]

What if Philly goes 16-0 both seasons...New England squeaks in both seasons with an 8-8 record and Philly just whups them with a combined score of like 98-7 or so in the two remaining Super Bowls of the decade?

Sadly, Philly was so mediocre to terrible much of the rest of the decade, it's too big a hole. NE wins the last two team of decades.

That said, Philly is built VERY nicely for the future.  The trick here is actually maintaining the excellence for 10...or 17 years. It's really...really.....REALLY hard in today's NFL.