The difference between great teams of the past and the Patriots of thi (1 Viewer)

[bostonfred]

BostonFred,My comments were more of a response to his overall point than a commentary on the Ravens/Pats game in particular. OP was claiming that the Pats can somehow magically eek out close victories when they don't play well and a worse team is in the game(or even winning the game) late in the 4th quarter. He was also claiming that some 1 or 2 loss teams of the past lack this "ability." I think thats complete BS. Do you disagree?I think the Pats are one of the best teams during my lifetime along with the 91 Skins, 85 Bears, and 89 49ers. I think the 96 Pack, 98 Broncos, and 04 Pats are right behind that group. So please don't take my comments as "Pats hating." I think you know by now that I'm above that. Theres a lot of stupidity imo in the sports world, starting with ESPN and trickling(sp?) on down to the average fan. I just think so many people fail to understand the role of luck and standard deviation in sports. Things like "clutchness" and "will to win" and this thread simply drive me crazy, yet so many people hold to them as absolute truths.P.S. Feels like I havn't talked to you on the board in forever man....hows it been? Coming to Vegas anytime soon?

Here's the best I can describe what I'm saying. Let's say that on a scale of 1 to 100, the Patriots are generally a 90. Let's also say that Ravens are a 70. Let's also say that the Browns are a 75. On any given Sunday, those numbers will fluctuate, like in Madden, but let's say that that's their overall rating. I think the Ravens put up one of their best games. They played lights out defense, they got pressure on Brady, they were able to not just cover Moss but also Welker, which nobody else has done, even if it did mean a little more grabbing than usual. If they're normally a 70, I'd say they played more like an 80 this week. The Pats did not put up one of their best games. They dropped some passes, they struggled on run defense. But they also passed the ball well considering how well the receivers were covered, ran the ball pretty well, and were able to get three and outs when they needed to, including some third and shorts. If they're normally a 90, I'd say they played more like an 80 this week, too. That's one kind of variance. The other part - the luck part - also plays a role in every game - when an oblong ball bounces on the ground, it might bounce right back to the player who fumbled it, it might bounce to a defender, or it might roll harmlessly out of bounds. A ball you might normally catch flutters in the wind and you don't adjust properly, so it falls harmlessly to the ground. The defender holds your receiver, and the ref doesn't see it, but when you hold theirs, the ref sees it and throws a flag. You can control some of it, but not all of it. I'd say that both teams benefitted from that latter kind of variance this week. The Ravens benefitted a lot more in the first three quarters. Some of it was out of the players' control - the wind which caused more passes to sail on Brady than normal - and some wasn't, like the Darling reception, or the missed touchdown by Watson, or some of the Pats' penalties that were called while the Ravens' weren't. If things had broken the other way on a few of those, the Pats would have been leading early. But the Pats clearly benefitted a lot more at the end of the game. The timeout call might not have been unfair to the Ravens, but it was certainly unfortunate variance for them. The holding call was terrible timing for them, but there's no question they held, and were holding on other plays. At the end of the day, is it more correct to say the two teams played a fairly evenly matched game, and the Pats came out on top due to variance? Or to say that the Pats had already been dinged up by variance all game, and only made up for it at the end? Are they a 90 who played like a 70 but benefitted from variance enough to beat a 70 who played like an 80? Or are they a 90 who played like an 80 but were hurt so much by variance that they struggled to beat a 70? We get to see about 16-20 trials per year from each team in the NFL to get a feel for what their overall ranking should be, but it's hard to look at any single game and say, this team is a 100, and that team's a zero. Look at the Bills in 2003, who beat the Pats 38-0 in week one, only to lose 38-0 to them at the end of the season. Were the Pats a bad team who couldn't beat the Bills? Or was Lawyer Milloy's intimate knowledge of the gameplan the difference? I think most people - including Milloy, who bragged about it later - would lean towards the latter. The great teams of the past had bad days, just like the Pats. And they had great days, just like the Pats. The question is, were they, overall, a 95? Or a 90? The Pats are on pace to set a lot of offensive records, and have very good overall numbers in rush offense and defense despite the perception of their recent performance. If they set all kinds of records en route to a 19-0 season and Superbowl championship - which is far from a given - then it's absurd to say that they weren't a great team. They'd have to be considered the greatest ever, because there would be very few metrics by which to argue that another team with a worse offense or defense that had lost games was better. And we'd look back and say, overall, their games against Baltimore and Philly were the result of bad variance, because this team is way better than those two. On the other hand, if they lose to the Steelers this weekend after another poor defensive performance, and Moss gets shut down again, and the offensive line struggles to protect Brady, we'd be more likely to say that the Pats lost because of a change in their play, or because teams had figured them out, and we wouldn't look at them as the greatest ever. As for Vegas, I'm not sure when I'll be there next. If I'm coming out I'll ping you, though; it'd be great to sit at a table together for a bit. Do you play in any live tournaments out there? Or just NL ring?

 

[freelander]

You guys need to consider that the primary component of a "bad day" is not that NE was "off" but rather they were being challenged and hit and subsequently hesitant / out of synch.

Please at least admit that the Eagles and Ravens get credit for NE having a "bad day".

 

[Road Warriors]

You guys need to consider that the primary component of a "bad day" is not that NE was "off" but rather they were being challenged and hit and subsequently hesitant / out of synch. Please at least admit that the Eagles and Ravens get credit for NE having a "bad day".

The biggest difference I've seen over the past 2 weeks is that both the Eagles and Ravens played like an NFL team. They played hard, hit hard, and didn't quit. They both believed they could win the game ( as did Indy ) During most of the other blowouts, the Pats got up big and, IMO, the opponents threw up their hands and admitted defeat. To beat the Pats, its going to take a full 60 minutes of your best, hard-nosed football. Anything less, you can expect to lose. Props to the Ravens & Eagles for showing up and showing some fight.

 

[bostonfred]

You guys need to consider that the primary component of a "bad day" is not that NE was "off" but rather they were being challenged and hit and subsequently hesitant / out of synch. Please at least admit that the Eagles and Ravens get credit for NE having a "bad day".

I can't speak for the other Pats fans in here, but I think a big reason Moss has had trouble catching the ball is he's getting hit hard by physical defensive backs in the cold. That does a number on you after a while. I give the Ravens and Eagles defenses a ton of credit for this, and I expect the Steelers to do the same. I also give the Eagles credit for being the first "normal" team to really get to Tom Brady, which is a credit to their defensive line and to the coaches for their blitz packages, and to AJ Feeley for making some great throws. Westbrooks giddyup over the line for a touchdown was an impressive run, too. I give the Ravens credit for the same, to the coaches for using the wind to their advantage, to McGahee who had one heck of a drive culminating in a not-to-be-denied run to the end zone carrying several players, and to Boller, who made a couple good throws in that game, including the touchdown pass in the back of the end zone where he threaded the needle between defenders at the start of the second half and the bomb to Clayton as time expired that almost won the game in shocking fashion (Mason's PI notwithstanding). I also think that, if the Ravens or Eagles played at that level all year, they'd be a lot better than their current records. I think both teams are talented, but flawed, and have dealt with some adversity this year. Which is also why I think it's wrong to call Baltimore some kind of schlub four win team, when they're clearly capable of playing better than that.

 

[Tanner9919]

No team can sustain that level of dominance over an entire 16 game season. It's impossible. What makes the Pats special is that they are finding ways to win when they are outplayed. That's the difference between 14-2 and 16-0. I never felt that Philly could beat the Pats, even when they pushed the Pats D around and hit Brady all night. However, last night I had chalked it up to a loss and so did my friends. The Pats were outplayed and still found the guts and poise to win. The Pats were worked on both sides of the ball and clearly didn't have the requisite focus. Dropped balls and lack of fire. They should have lost. A 14-2 or 13-3 team loses that game. But when they needed it in the 4th, that D stiffened up REAL quick. They got the breaks that every great team gets a couple times a year and Brady came up when it mattered. I completely understand why the haters feel the way they do. But you have to admire a team that can win when they shouldn't..That's the difference

dude, they haven't won ANYTHING , yet..if they go on to win the SB as an undefeated team, then you can talk..even if they lose a reg season game, yet still win the SB, you can talk..its nothing but idle chatter for you to give them props, without them winning anything, yet!talk all you want in february if they win it all..but for now, lets just let the season play out, and the playoffs go on,and we'll see what happens..

 

[freelander]

You guys need to consider that the primary component of a "bad day" is not that NE was "off" but rather they were being challenged and hit and subsequently hesitant / out of synch. Please at least admit that the Eagles and Ravens get credit for NE having a "bad day".

I can't speak for the other Pats fans in here, but I think a big reason Moss has had trouble catching the ball is he's getting hit hard by physical defensive backs in the cold. That does a number on you after a while. I give the Ravens and Eagles defenses a ton of credit for this, and I expect the Steelers to do the same. I also give the Eagles credit for being the first "normal" team to really get to Tom Brady, which is a credit to their defensive line and to the coaches for their blitz packages, and to AJ Feeley for making some great throws. Westbrooks giddyup over the line for a touchdown was an impressive run, too. I give the Ravens credit for the same, to the coaches for using the wind to their advantage, to McGahee who had one heck of a drive culminating in a not-to-be-denied run to the end zone carrying several players, and to Boller, who made a couple good throws in that game, including the touchdown pass in the back of the end zone where he threaded the needle between defenders at the start of the second half and the bomb to Clayton as time expired that almost won the game in shocking fashion (Mason's PI notwithstanding). I also think that, if the Ravens or Eagles played at that level all year, they'd be a lot better than their current records. I think both teams are talented, but flawed, and have dealt with some adversity this year. Which is also why I think it's wrong to call Baltimore some kind of schlub four win team, when they're clearly capable of playing better than that.

Somehow I don't think you're buying that maybe NE isn't as great as you all thought originally... Ravens had the wind advantage?? threading a needle?? The way I see it, to use your construct ... say NE is a 90; prior to playing the Eagles and Balt, they have been playing to a 100 level. The Eagles and Ravens played very well, say 20 points above their level to a 90-91 on game day...enough to beat the Patriots...whereas the Patriots stayed at a 90. So its not that NE played poorly, its that the Eagles and Balt. refused to let them play at a 100 level.

 

[Knight who says Ni]

I wouldn't mind the fact that NE is winning , if it wasn't for all of the smugness and arrogance with which they go out and play..

they have no class..I don't mind running up the score, but when Rodney Harrison starts jabbing at Brian Billick , or any HC for that matter, its classless BS at that point..but I'm not going to say NE deserves an asterisk next to their name if they go 16-0, they'll have earned their place in history by then..

I'm in agreement with this, especially the bolded part - for most of the season, I was enjoying watching history in the making (and this is from a Jets fan). I have always admired guys like Vrabel, Bruschi, and even Seau, but Harrison's antics were inexcusable and have soured my opinion of this team. Ni

 

[PMENFAN]

I KNEW IT...I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT!!!



As I watched the last few seconds tick off the NE/BAL game, I was thinking the ONLY thing worse than the smug and whiney Patriots actually winning that gifted game was listening to another week of "THE GOOD TEAMS FIND WAYS TO WIN."

How about this...the good teams don't almost lose to Kyle Boller.

... or AJ Feeley.BTW "finding a way to win" is equivalent to having a few more players on the field for your team (wearing black and white)

Did, or did not, the DC call time out? He did, and the official would have to cheat to not grant it. Was, or was their not a false start? There was. It was called.

MOss was not only held coming out of the break, but hit before the ball arrived. Call it holding or PI, it's the right call.

Whining about officiating, when the calls were clearly correct, is pathetic. Why not compain about the drive prior where NE picked up a first down on a Maroney run, only to have it become 2nd and 14 because of a hold? How aobut the drive before with Brady getting nailed for OPI, starting out a drive 1st and 20? A drie that wasn't?

If there was any legitimacy to the claim, or if you didn't incessantly whine aobut the Pats, you might have a point.

They simply made the play, ultimately, when given the chance. Was there luch? Sure. but, to pretend the refs somehow made bad calls is ridiculous.

 

[PMENFAN]

You guys need to consider that the primary component of a "bad day" is not that NE was "off" but rather they were being challenged and hit and subsequently hesitant / out of synch. Please at least admit that the Eagles and Ravens get credit for NE having a "bad day".

Of course they do. Defensively they both did a very good job. Offensively, Feeley played like he was Dan Marino. Luck? He tried the same passes this last week and threw four picks. Football is a game of inches. They came out in his favor against NE. It gave the team conficence, and they almost won. Balt? They had NE's #. Nothing the pats did on D worked, and every time they stunted, it opened a hole for McGahee. LB's were blocked too often. Both teams played great against NE. They deserve complete kudos.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I wouldn't mind the fact that NE is winning , if it wasn't for all of the smugness and arrogance with which they go out and play..

they have no class..I don't mind running up the score, but when Rodney Harrison starts jabbing at Brian Billick , or any HC for that matter, its classless BS at that point..but I'm not going to say NE deserves an asterisk next to their name if they go 16-0, they'll have earned their place in history by then..

I'm in agreement with this, especially the bolded part - for most of the season, I was enjoying watching history in the making (and this is from a Jets fan). I have always admired guys like Vrabel, Bruschi, and even Seau, but Harrison's antics were inexcusable and have soured my opinion of this team. Ni

Four things:1. Harrison talking smack and being fined for being overly physical is not news.

2. Talking smack and physical play are part of playing his position (see Ravens, Colts, Steelers, etc.)

3. Vrabel, Bruschi, Seau and 48 other guys are not Rodney Harrison, so how do one man's actions sour your opinion of a team? The logic doesn't work.

4. I completely agree that his jawing at the opposing coach was inappropriate and counter-productive.

 

[Eric]

All I can say about this is that if the 1985 Bears played NE, they would destroy them and I hate the Bears. Early 90's Dallas would probably also win.Boller...c'mon.

I haven't read this whole thread, so it may have been brought up...but both the teams you mentioned were either beaten, or nearly beaten, by scrub teams at one point or another during their season.

 

[phthalatemagic]

3. Vrabel, Bruschi, Seau and 48 other guys are not Rodney Harrison, so how do one man's actions sour your opinion of a team? The logic doesn't work.

Nazi Germany was mostly good too, except Hitler of course.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

3. Vrabel, Bruschi, Seau and 48 other guys are not Rodney Harrison, so how do one man's actions sour your opinion of a team? The logic doesn't work.

Nazi Germany was mostly good too, except Hitler of course.

So, mocking an opposing coach because his QB just blew the game (a game in which the opposing defenders were spewing bile at both his team and the officiating staff) equates to genocide of 6 million people. Interesting perspective.Shall we compile a list of historical teams that had a nasty player on them? In each case, does the team equal the player? Rhetorically, does one bad apple really spoil the bunch? The logic is patently flawed.

 

[bostonfred]

You guys need to consider that the primary component of a "bad day" is not that NE was "off" but rather they were being challenged and hit and subsequently hesitant / out of synch. Please at least admit that the Eagles and Ravens get credit for NE having a "bad day".

I can't speak for the other Pats fans in here, but I think a big reason Moss has had trouble catching the ball is he's getting hit hard by physical defensive backs in the cold. That does a number on you after a while. I give the Ravens and Eagles defenses a ton of credit for this, and I expect the Steelers to do the same. I also give the Eagles credit for being the first "normal" team to really get to Tom Brady, which is a credit to their defensive line and to the coaches for their blitz packages, and to AJ Feeley for making some great throws. Westbrooks giddyup over the line for a touchdown was an impressive run, too. I give the Ravens credit for the same, to the coaches for using the wind to their advantage, to McGahee who had one heck of a drive culminating in a not-to-be-denied run to the end zone carrying several players, and to Boller, who made a couple good throws in that game, including the touchdown pass in the back of the end zone where he threaded the needle between defenders at the start of the second half and the bomb to Clayton as time expired that almost won the game in shocking fashion (Mason's PI notwithstanding). I also think that, if the Ravens or Eagles played at that level all year, they'd be a lot better than their current records. I think both teams are talented, but flawed, and have dealt with some adversity this year. Which is also why I think it's wrong to call Baltimore some kind of schlub four win team, when they're clearly capable of playing better than that.

Somehow I don't think you're buying that maybe NE isn't as great as you all thought originally... Ravens had the wind advantage?? threading a needle?? The way I see it, to use your construct ... say NE is a 90; prior to playing the Eagles and Balt, they have been playing to a 100 level. The Eagles and Ravens played very well, say 20 points above their level to a 90-91 on game day...enough to beat the Patriots...whereas the Patriots stayed at a 90. So its not that NE played poorly, its that the Eagles and Balt. refused to let them play at a 100 level.

Actually, no, I said that the Pats played at an 80 level. And the Ravens played up to their level and then some. I give a lot of credit to both the Eagles and Ravens not only for playing better than expected, but for playing up to the potential people thought they had at the start of the season. I give them credit for making it difficult for the Patriots. I think Moss had a bad game. I think part of the reason Moss had a bad game is that he got hit a lot more than usual, and in cold, windy weather. It's possible that the Pats were an 80 all along, and that they've been playing up to a 90 or 100 level, but they just didn't this week. Or it's possible that they're a 90 all along, and that they're playing down to an 80 level. Even with 16-20 unique games to look at, it's difficult to get that right, but the reason I used that model above is that it gives us a tool for describing how good the team is over the course of the season. Could the 85 Bears beat the 2007 game 12 Patriots? Probably. Could the 85 Bears, playing at the level they played against Miami, beat the 2007 Patriots, playing at the level they played against the Bills or Redskins or Chargers? Probably not. If we're going to take on the impossible task of comparing teams, not just for one game, but across eras, I think you need to look at their season as a whole. Given 12 data points, the Pats are undefeated, and they've had quite a few great games, and 2-3 good ones. Are they a good team? A great team? Somewhere in between? The more data points we get, the more we'll know, but right now, I think it's still reasonable to say that they're a great team that has had some just good games. Long term, that might change. Do you think otherwise? If so, why?

 

[phthalatemagic]

3. Vrabel, Bruschi, Seau and 48 other guys are not Rodney Harrison, so how do one man's actions sour your opinion of a team? The logic doesn't work.

Nazi Germany was mostly good too, except Hitler of course.

So, mocking an opposing coach because his QB just blew the game (a game in which the opposing defenders were spewing bile at both his team and the officiating staff) equates to genocide of 6 million people. Interesting perspective.Shall we compile a list of historical teams that had a nasty player on them? In each case, does the team equal the player? Rhetorically, does one bad apple really spoil the bunch? The logic is patently flawed.

Please stop saying logic. Please. That word has to be the second most abused word on this message board, after shtick.

 

[freelander]

You guys need to consider that the primary component of a "bad day" is not that NE was "off" but rather they were being challenged and hit and subsequently hesitant / out of synch. Please at least admit that the Eagles and Ravens get credit for NE having a "bad day".

I can't speak for the other Pats fans in here, but I think a big reason Moss has had trouble catching the ball is he's getting hit hard by physical defensive backs in the cold. That does a number on you after a while. I give the Ravens and Eagles defenses a ton of credit for this, and I expect the Steelers to do the same. I also give the Eagles credit for being the first "normal" team to really get to Tom Brady, which is a credit to their defensive line and to the coaches for their blitz packages, and to AJ Feeley for making some great throws. Westbrooks giddyup over the line for a touchdown was an impressive run, too. I give the Ravens credit for the same, to the coaches for using the wind to their advantage, to McGahee who had one heck of a drive culminating in a not-to-be-denied run to the end zone carrying several players, and to Boller, who made a couple good throws in that game, including the touchdown pass in the back of the end zone where he threaded the needle between defenders at the start of the second half and the bomb to Clayton as time expired that almost won the game in shocking fashion (Mason's PI notwithstanding). I also think that, if the Ravens or Eagles played at that level all year, they'd be a lot better than their current records. I think both teams are talented, but flawed, and have dealt with some adversity this year. Which is also why I think it's wrong to call Baltimore some kind of schlub four win team, when they're clearly capable of playing better than that.

Somehow I don't think you're buying that maybe NE isn't as great as you all thought originally... Ravens had the wind advantage?? threading a needle?? The way I see it, to use your construct ... say NE is a 90; prior to playing the Eagles and Balt, they have been playing to a 100 level. The Eagles and Ravens played very well, say 20 points above their level to a 90-91 on game day...enough to beat the Patriots...whereas the Patriots stayed at a 90. So its not that NE played poorly, its that the Eagles and Balt. refused to let them play at a 100 level.

Actually, no, I said that the Pats played at an 80 level. And the Ravens played up to their level and then some. I give a lot of credit to both the Eagles and Ravens not only for playing better than expected, but for playing up to the potential people thought they had at the start of the season. I give them credit for making it difficult for the Patriots. I think Moss had a bad game. I think part of the reason Moss had a bad game is that he got hit a lot more than usual, and in cold, windy weather. It's possible that the Pats were an 80 all along, and that they've been playing up to a 90 or 100 level, but they just didn't this week. Or it's possible that they're a 90 all along, and that they're playing down to an 80 level. Even with 16-20 unique games to look at, it's difficult to get that right, but the reason I used that model above is that it gives us a tool for describing how good the team is over the course of the season. Could the 85 Bears beat the 2007 game 12 Patriots? Probably. Could the 85 Bears, playing at the level they played against Miami, beat the 2007 Patriots, playing at the level they played against the Bills or Redskins or Chargers? Probably not. If we're going to take on the impossible task of comparing teams, not just for one game, but across eras, I think you need to look at their season as a whole. Given 12 data points, the Pats are undefeated, and they've had quite a few great games, and 2-3 good ones. Are they a good team? A great team? Somewhere in between? The more data points we get, the more we'll know, but right now, I think it's still reasonable to say that they're a great team that has had some just good games. Long term, that might change. Do you think otherwise? If so, why?

My point has nothing to do with comparing teams from past years to the Patriots of this year.My point is you are insinuating that the Patriots barely won because they had a bad week/game... I am simply saying that their bad week was due in part to the good play against them ...that's it. LOL about poor Moss and cold weather... it wasn't cold for the other recievers??

 

[kwantam]

3. Vrabel, Bruschi, Seau and 48 other guys are not Rodney Harrison, so how do one man's actions sour your opinion of a team? The logic doesn't work.

Nazi Germany was mostly good too, except Hitler of course.

Mike Godwin, correct again.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

...and this thread is hereby over.

-=kwantam

 

[bostonfred]

You guys need to consider that the primary component of a "bad day" is not that NE was "off" but rather they were being challenged and hit and subsequently hesitant / out of synch. Please at least admit that the Eagles and Ravens get credit for NE having a "bad day".

I can't speak for the other Pats fans in here, but I think a big reason Moss has had trouble catching the ball is he's getting hit hard by physical defensive backs in the cold. That does a number on you after a while. I give the Ravens and Eagles defenses a ton of credit for this, and I expect the Steelers to do the same. I also give the Eagles credit for being the first "normal" team to really get to Tom Brady, which is a credit to their defensive line and to the coaches for their blitz packages, and to AJ Feeley for making some great throws. Westbrooks giddyup over the line for a touchdown was an impressive run, too. I give the Ravens credit for the same, to the coaches for using the wind to their advantage, to McGahee who had one heck of a drive culminating in a not-to-be-denied run to the end zone carrying several players, and to Boller, who made a couple good throws in that game, including the touchdown pass in the back of the end zone where he threaded the needle between defenders at the start of the second half and the bomb to Clayton as time expired that almost won the game in shocking fashion (Mason's PI notwithstanding). I also think that, if the Ravens or Eagles played at that level all year, they'd be a lot better than their current records. I think both teams are talented, but flawed, and have dealt with some adversity this year. Which is also why I think it's wrong to call Baltimore some kind of schlub four win team, when they're clearly capable of playing better than that.

Somehow I don't think you're buying that maybe NE isn't as great as you all thought originally... Ravens had the wind advantage?? threading a needle?? The way I see it, to use your construct ... say NE is a 90; prior to playing the Eagles and Balt, they have been playing to a 100 level. The Eagles and Ravens played very well, say 20 points above their level to a 90-91 on game day...enough to beat the Patriots...whereas the Patriots stayed at a 90. So its not that NE played poorly, its that the Eagles and Balt. refused to let them play at a 100 level.

Actually, no, I said that the Pats played at an 80 level. And the Ravens played up to their level and then some. I give a lot of credit to both the Eagles and Ravens not only for playing better than expected, but for playing up to the potential people thought they had at the start of the season. I give them credit for making it difficult for the Patriots. I think Moss had a bad game. I think part of the reason Moss had a bad game is that he got hit a lot more than usual, and in cold, windy weather. It's possible that the Pats were an 80 all along, and that they've been playing up to a 90 or 100 level, but they just didn't this week. Or it's possible that they're a 90 all along, and that they're playing down to an 80 level. Even with 16-20 unique games to look at, it's difficult to get that right, but the reason I used that model above is that it gives us a tool for describing how good the team is over the course of the season. Could the 85 Bears beat the 2007 game 12 Patriots? Probably. Could the 85 Bears, playing at the level they played against Miami, beat the 2007 Patriots, playing at the level they played against the Bills or Redskins or Chargers? Probably not. If we're going to take on the impossible task of comparing teams, not just for one game, but across eras, I think you need to look at their season as a whole. Given 12 data points, the Pats are undefeated, and they've had quite a few great games, and 2-3 good ones. Are they a good team? A great team? Somewhere in between? The more data points we get, the more we'll know, but right now, I think it's still reasonable to say that they're a great team that has had some just good games. Long term, that might change. Do you think otherwise? If so, why?

My point has nothing to do with comparing teams from past years to the Patriots of this year.My point is you are insinuating that the Patriots barely won because they had a bad week/game... I am simply saying that their bad week was due in part to the good play against them ...that's it. LOL about poor Moss and cold weather... it wasn't cold for the other recievers??

Are you picking a fight? If so, it's not a very good one. I'm not insinuating any of the things you said. I said that the Ravens played up and the Pats played down. I've said that in every post you've quoted. I don't know what you think saying, but I don't think I'm saying it. The Patriots probably had their worst game of the year - although it was still a good game and good enough to beat the Ravens on a night when they had their best game of the year. One big reason the Patriots played poorly is that the Ravens did so well. I'll take it a step further and say that the Ravens defended the Pats the way the Pats used to defend the Colts. The best way to stop a prolific passing offense is to hold the receivers more and hit them harder. If it's cold, you hit them more. If it's windy, you can be more aggressive. The Ravens played the exact right kind of defense, and the players executed very well. The Patriots were still good enough to score 27 points, but they weren't great on offense, and a big part of the reason they struggled was that the defense was so aggressive, and were hitting them hard, and doing just about everything right. On defense, McGahee and Ogden had a great day. Boller had his best day of the year. Was that because they played well, or the Pats played poorly? I think it was both. The Pats had one particularly bad series on run defense, and McGahee looked really, really good once he got past the line of scrimmage, especially on that TD run. The Pats responded by playing situational defense, run blitzing while the Ravens tried to run the ball out and trying to bait Boller into throwing a pick or stopping the clock with an incompletion. That's a big part of the reason Harrison made a couple big stops late in the game.

 

[phthalatemagic]

3. Vrabel, Bruschi, Seau and 48 other guys are not Rodney Harrison, so how do one man's actions sour your opinion of a team? The logic doesn't work.

Nazi Germany was mostly good too, except Hitler of course.

Mike Godwin, correct again.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

...and this thread is hereby over.

-=kwantam

No, it isn't.__--=---=--=_+-=_+-=-=_+-=_-ds+^^)(*&amp)*&amp(&- phthalatemagic

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

3. Vrabel, Bruschi, Seau and 48 other guys are not Rodney Harrison, so how do one man's actions sour your opinion of a team? The logic doesn't work.

Nazi Germany was mostly good too, except Hitler of course.

So, mocking an opposing coach because his QB just blew the game (a game in which the opposing defenders were spewing bile at both his team and the officiating staff) equates to genocide of 6 million people. Interesting perspective.Shall we compile a list of historical teams that had a nasty player on them? In each case, does the team equal the player? Rhetorically, does one bad apple really spoil the bunch? The logic is patently flawed.

Please stop saying logic. Please. That word has to be the second most abused word on this message board, after shtick.

Incorrect. The topic 3 are:#3. logic#2. schtick#1. toxic waste

 

[freelander]

You guys need to consider that the primary component of a "bad day" is not that NE was "off" but rather they were being challenged and hit and subsequently hesitant / out of synch. Please at least admit that the Eagles and Ravens get credit for NE having a "bad day".

I can't speak for the other Pats fans in here, but I think a big reason Moss has had trouble catching the ball is he's getting hit hard by physical defensive backs in the cold. That does a number on you after a while. I give the Ravens and Eagles defenses a ton of credit for this, and I expect the Steelers to do the same. I also give the Eagles credit for being the first "normal" team to really get to Tom Brady, which is a credit to their defensive line and to the coaches for their blitz packages, and to AJ Feeley for making some great throws. Westbrooks giddyup over the line for a touchdown was an impressive run, too. I give the Ravens credit for the same, to the coaches for using the wind to their advantage, to McGahee who had one heck of a drive culminating in a not-to-be-denied run to the end zone carrying several players, and to Boller, who made a couple good throws in that game, including the touchdown pass in the back of the end zone where he threaded the needle between defenders at the start of the second half and the bomb to Clayton as time expired that almost won the game in shocking fashion (Mason's PI notwithstanding). I also think that, if the Ravens or Eagles played at that level all year, they'd be a lot better than their current records. I think both teams are talented, but flawed, and have dealt with some adversity this year. Which is also why I think it's wrong to call Baltimore some kind of schlub four win team, when they're clearly capable of playing better than that.

Somehow I don't think you're buying that maybe NE isn't as great as you all thought originally... Ravens had the wind advantage?? threading a needle?? The way I see it, to use your construct ... say NE is a 90; prior to playing the Eagles and Balt, they have been playing to a 100 level. The Eagles and Ravens played very well, say 20 points above their level to a 90-91 on game day...enough to beat the Patriots...whereas the Patriots stayed at a 90. So its not that NE played poorly, its that the Eagles and Balt. refused to let them play at a 100 level.

Actually, no, I said that the Pats played at an 80 level. And the Ravens played up to their level and then some. I give a lot of credit to both the Eagles and Ravens not only for playing better than expected, but for playing up to the potential people thought they had at the start of the season. I give them credit for making it difficult for the Patriots. I think Moss had a bad game. I think part of the reason Moss had a bad game is that he got hit a lot more than usual, and in cold, windy weather. It's possible that the Pats were an 80 all along, and that they've been playing up to a 90 or 100 level, but they just didn't this week. Or it's possible that they're a 90 all along, and that they're playing down to an 80 level. Even with 16-20 unique games to look at, it's difficult to get that right, but the reason I used that model above is that it gives us a tool for describing how good the team is over the course of the season. Could the 85 Bears beat the 2007 game 12 Patriots? Probably. Could the 85 Bears, playing at the level they played against Miami, beat the 2007 Patriots, playing at the level they played against the Bills or Redskins or Chargers? Probably not. If we're going to take on the impossible task of comparing teams, not just for one game, but across eras, I think you need to look at their season as a whole. Given 12 data points, the Pats are undefeated, and they've had quite a few great games, and 2-3 good ones. Are they a good team? A great team? Somewhere in between? The more data points we get, the more we'll know, but right now, I think it's still reasonable to say that they're a great team that has had some just good games. Long term, that might change. Do you think otherwise? If so, why?

My point has nothing to do with comparing teams from past years to the Patriots of this year.My point is you are insinuating that the Patriots barely won because they had a bad week/game... I am simply saying that their bad week was due in part to the good play against them ...that's it. LOL about poor Moss and cold weather... it wasn't cold for the other recievers??

Are you picking a fight? If so, it's not a very good one. I'm not insinuating any of the things you said. I said that the Ravens played up and the Pats played down. I've said that in every post you've quoted. I don't know what you think saying, but I don't think I'm saying it. The Patriots probably had their worst game of the year - although it was still a good game and good enough to beat the Ravens on a night when they had their best game of the year. One big reason the Patriots played poorly is that the Ravens did so well. I'll take it a step further and say that the Ravens defended the Pats the way the Pats used to defend the Colts. The best way to stop a prolific passing offense is to hold the receivers more and hit them harder. If it's cold, you hit them more. If it's windy, you can be more aggressive. The Ravens played the exact right kind of defense, and the players executed very well. The Patriots were still good enough to score 27 points, but they weren't great on offense, and a big part of the reason they struggled was that the defense was so aggressive, and were hitting them hard, and doing just about everything right. On defense, McGahee and Ogden had a great day. Boller had his best day of the year. Was that because they played well, or the Pats played poorly? I think it was both. The Pats had one particularly bad series on run defense, and McGahee looked really, really good once he got past the line of scrimmage, especially on that TD run. The Pats responded by playing situational defense, run blitzing while the Ravens tried to run the ball out and trying to bait Boller into throwing a pick or stopping the clock with an incompletion. That's a big part of the reason Harrison made a couple big stops late in the game.

Picking a fight ? I really thought I was making a simple point, but it appears I'm wasting my time because your homerizm is blinding you. I give. The Pats are the greatest team EVAH! and when they almost lose, it has only to do with the fact that they just had a bad day and the conditions just happen to be perfect for the opposing team to excel. I get it.

 

[bostonfred]

Picking a fight ? I really thought I was making a simple point, but it appears I'm wasting my time because your homerizm is blinding you. I give. The Pats are the greatest team EVAH! and when they almost lose, it has only to do with the fact that they just had a bad day and the conditions just happen to be perfect for the opposing team to excel. I get it.

If I'd said or implied any of the words you just put in my mouth, or done anything but agree with you, you'd be well within your rights to make this kind of post. I didn't. Which is why I'm pretty sure you're looking to pick a fight.

 

[freelander]

Picking a fight ? I really thought I was making a simple point, but it appears I'm wasting my time because your homerizm is blinding you. I give. The Pats are the greatest team EVAH! and when they almost lose, it has only to do with the fact that they just had a bad day and the conditions just happen to be perfect for the opposing team to excel. I get it.

If I'd said or implied any of the words you just put in my mouth, or done anything but agree with you, you'd be well within your rights to make this kind of post. I didn't. Which is why I'm pretty sure you're looking to pick a fight.

Are you serious? you are basically saying the Pats had a bad day and the Ravens played way over their heads and cheated (holded) and the weather was in their favor, no?? How is that so different than what I just said?

 

[twitch]

You guys need to consider that the primary component of a "bad day" is not that NE was "off" but rather they were being challenged and hit and subsequently hesitant / out of synch.

Please at least admit that the Eagles and Ravens get credit for NE having a "bad day".

I can't speak for the other Pats fans in here, but I think a big reason Moss has had trouble catching the ball is he's getting hit hard by physical defensive backs in the cold. That does a number on you after a while. I give the Ravens and Eagles defenses a ton of credit for this, and I expect the Steelers to do the same. I also give the Eagles credit for being the first "normal" team to really get to Tom Brady, which is a credit to their defensive line and to the coaches for their blitz packages, and to AJ Feeley for making some great throws. Westbrooks giddyup over the line for a touchdown was an impressive run, too. I give the Ravens credit for the same, to the coaches for using the wind to their advantage, to McGahee who had one heck of a drive culminating in a not-to-be-denied run to the end zone carrying several players, and to Boller, who made a couple good throws in that game, including the touchdown pass in the back of the end zone where he threaded the needle between defenders at the start of the second half and the bomb to Clayton as time expired that almost won the game in shocking fashion (Mason's PI notwithstanding). I also think that, if the Ravens or Eagles played at that level all year, they'd be a lot better than their current records. I think both teams are talented, but flawed, and have dealt with some adversity this year. Which is also why I think it's wrong to call Baltimore some kind of schlub four win team, when they're clearly capable of playing better than that.

Gotta defend ya here, Fred. Youve clearly given props to both Philly and Baltimore several times here. The credit is given. this was clear and objective. And I see a whole lot more crediting opposing teams here than I do suggesting New England had an off day. This entire post was basically nothing BUT praise to opposing teams. Not suggesting NE had an off day. Dont take the bait.

 

[bostonfred]

Picking a fight ? I really thought I was making a simple point, but it appears I'm wasting my time because your homerizm is blinding you. I give. The Pats are the greatest team EVAH! and when they almost lose, it has only to do with the fact that they just had a bad day and the conditions just happen to be perfect for the opposing team to excel. I get it.

If I'd said or implied any of the words you just put in my mouth, or done anything but agree with you, you'd be well within your rights to make this kind of post. I didn't. Which is why I'm pretty sure you're looking to pick a fight.

Are you serious? you are basically saying the Pats had a bad day and the Ravens played way over their heads and cheated (holded) and the weather was in their favor, no?? How is that not so different than what I just said?

Gotcha. I think the Ravens played a great game. The disconnect seems to be that I don't think that "holding" (I should have said clutching, or bumping, but they really are borderline holding quite a bit) and hitting the receivers in the cold is saying "the Ravens played a bad game" or "the Ravens did not play well and only cheated". I think that holding and hitting the receivers is the correct play in the cold. I don't think the Ravens were incapable of playing a good game in the cold, but I think the style of play was exactly correct for the weather conditions and the Patriots offense. I was being descriptive of the good game they played, not making excuses. The Patriots played the same kind of defense in the playoffs against the Colts, if you'll remember. It would be hypocritical of me to say "It was good defense when the Pats did it, but it was unfair when the Ravens did it". I think it's a legitimate choice that a defensive team makes, and I agree with that choice in the conditions. The style of defense that the Pats played against the Rams in the 2001 Superbowl was different. They hit Faulk on every play, regardless of whether he got the ball or was even running a passing route. They bumped the receivers a lot. I think they broke Bruce's ribs, or Holt's, I can't remember which. They were super physical on every play, with deep safety support, and Law playing man. That's the right style of defense for a dome game against a juggernaught offense with an all-world running back. I think the Ravens would have played more of that style of defense if the conditions had been different, and as well as they played against the Pats, I think they would have executed just as well in a dome. The difference would be, Brady's passes might not have sailed as much, but the receivers would have risked more injury and probably would have dropped more passes. If anything, the point we agree on - that the Ravens played well enough that the Patriots looked stymied at times - is made best by looking at the end of the game. The Ravens had been getting great pressure on Brady and had been covering well behind him, but when they switched to a 3 man rush and dropped eight into coverage, Brady was able to exploit it. When the Ravens mixed things up, or ran on passing downs, the Pats struggled. But when the Pats were able to play situational football while the Ravens tried to run the ball at the end, they were able to hold the Ravens to three and outs. That's a credit to the Ravens, who executed well and had a good game plan for most of the game. When they moved away from it, the Pats exploited it. I can understand where you're coming from in thinking that I'm not giving credit to the Ravens, or saying they were cheating, but that's not what I intended. I can totally see how you would have read my posts that way, though, so my apologies for saying you were picking a fight. Do you understand where I'm coming from now?

 

[freelander]

You guys need to consider that the primary component of a "bad day" is not that NE was "off" but rather they were being challenged and hit and subsequently hesitant / out of synch.

Please at least admit that the Eagles and Ravens get credit for NE having a "bad day".

I can't speak for the other Pats fans in here, but I think a big reason Moss has had trouble catching the ball is he's getting hit hard by physical defensive backs in the cold. That does a number on you after a while. I give the Ravens and Eagles defenses a ton of credit for this, and I expect the Steelers to do the same. I also give the Eagles credit for being the first "normal" team to really get to Tom Brady, which is a credit to their defensive line and to the coaches for their blitz packages, and to AJ Feeley for making some great throws. Westbrooks giddyup over the line for a touchdown was an impressive run, too. I give the Ravens credit for the same, to the coaches for using the wind to their advantage, to McGahee who had one heck of a drive culminating in a not-to-be-denied run to the end zone carrying several players, and to Boller, who made a couple good throws in that game, including the touchdown pass in the back of the end zone where he threaded the needle between defenders at the start of the second half and the bomb to Clayton as time expired that almost won the game in shocking fashion (Mason's PI notwithstanding). I also think that, if the Ravens or Eagles played at that level all year, they'd be a lot better than their current records. I think both teams are talented, but flawed, and have dealt with some adversity this year. Which is also why I think it's wrong to call Baltimore some kind of schlub four win team, when they're clearly capable of playing better than that.

Gotta defend ya here, Fred. Youve clearly given props to both Philly and Baltimore several times here. The credit is given. this was clear and objective. And I see a whole lot more crediting opposing teams here than I do suggesting New England had an off day. This entire post was basically nothing BUT praise to opposing teams. Not suggesting NE had an off day. Dont take the bait.

You would. You're wearing the same glasses.Not worth my time. Good luck , maybe buy Moss some mittens for xmas.

 

[twitch]

You guys need to consider that the primary component of a "bad day" is not that NE was "off" but rather they were being challenged and hit and subsequently hesitant / out of synch.

Please at least admit that the Eagles and Ravens get credit for NE having a "bad day".

I can't speak for the other Pats fans in here, but I think a big reason Moss has had trouble catching the ball is he's getting hit hard by physical defensive backs in the cold. That does a number on you after a while. I give the Ravens and Eagles defenses a ton of credit for this, and I expect the Steelers to do the same. I also give the Eagles credit for being the first "normal" team to really get to Tom Brady, which is a credit to their defensive line and to the coaches for their blitz packages, and to AJ Feeley for making some great throws. Westbrooks giddyup over the line for a touchdown was an impressive run, too. I give the Ravens credit for the same, to the coaches for using the wind to their advantage, to McGahee who had one heck of a drive culminating in a not-to-be-denied run to the end zone carrying several players, and to Boller, who made a couple good throws in that game, including the touchdown pass in the back of the end zone where he threaded the needle between defenders at the start of the second half and the bomb to Clayton as time expired that almost won the game in shocking fashion (Mason's PI notwithstanding). I also think that, if the Ravens or Eagles played at that level all year, they'd be a lot better than their current records. I think both teams are talented, but flawed, and have dealt with some adversity this year. Which is also why I think it's wrong to call Baltimore some kind of schlub four win team, when they're clearly capable of playing better than that.

Gotta defend ya here, Fred. Youve clearly given props to both Philly and Baltimore several times here. The credit is given. this was clear and objective. And I see a whole lot more crediting opposing teams here than I do suggesting New England had an off day. This entire post was basically nothing BUT praise to opposing teams. Not suggesting NE had an off day. Dont take the bait.

You would. You're wearing the same glasses.Not worth my time. Good luck , maybe buy Moss some mittens for xmas.

yeah, those 12-0 glasses are sometimes hard to think through.

 

[Hatchdog33]

You guys need to consider that the primary component of a "bad day" is not that NE was "off" but rather they were being challenged and hit and subsequently hesitant / out of synch.

Please at least admit that the Eagles and Ravens get credit for NE having a "bad day".

I can't speak for the other Pats fans in here, but I think a big reason Moss has had trouble catching the ball is he's getting hit hard by physical defensive backs in the cold. That does a number on you after a while. I give the Ravens and Eagles defenses a ton of credit for this, and I expect the Steelers to do the same. I also give the Eagles credit for being the first "normal" team to really get to Tom Brady, which is a credit to their defensive line and to the coaches for their blitz packages, and to AJ Feeley for making some great throws. Westbrooks giddyup over the line for a touchdown was an impressive run, too. I give the Ravens credit for the same, to the coaches for using the wind to their advantage, to McGahee who had one heck of a drive culminating in a not-to-be-denied run to the end zone carrying several players, and to Boller, who made a couple good throws in that game, including the touchdown pass in the back of the end zone where he threaded the needle between defenders at the start of the second half and the bomb to Clayton as time expired that almost won the game in shocking fashion (Mason's PI notwithstanding). I also think that, if the Ravens or Eagles played at that level all year, they'd be a lot better than their current records. I think both teams are talented, but flawed, and have dealt with some adversity this year. Which is also why I think it's wrong to call Baltimore some kind of schlub four win team, when they're clearly capable of playing better than that.

Gotta defend ya here, Fred. Youve clearly given props to both Philly and Baltimore several times here. The credit is given. this was clear and objective. And I see a whole lot more crediting opposing teams here than I do suggesting New England had an off day. This entire post was basically nothing BUT praise to opposing teams. Not suggesting NE had an off day. Dont take the bait.

You would. You're wearing the same glasses.Not worth my time. Good luck , maybe buy Moss some mittens for xmas.

yeah, those 12-0 glasses are sometimes hard to think through.

I give Balt and Phi lots of credit. The initial point I made, and stand by, is that it's impressive when a team can win when they are outplayed for most of the game. They should've lost that Balt game, and would've 4 out of 5 times. They stiffened up on D, made plays on offense when they needed to, got some breaks and avoided mental errors. The one mental error they made, the motion play on 4th when Evans was stopped happened to be one of the breaks. Great teams get breaks, it's just fact. The colts were a great team last year and better than the Pats last year, and got a couple breaks in the AFC title game that helped make the difference ie the ridiculous Hobbs/Wayne call for one..If you try to put numbers or rational to it, it won't work, it just is..Great teams attract luck and breaks. Maybe it's attitude or will or what have you, but it's the way it is.

 

[phthalatemagic]

3. Vrabel, Bruschi, Seau and 48 other guys are not Rodney Harrison, so how do one man's actions sour your opinion of a team? The logic doesn't work.

Nazi Germany was mostly good too, except Hitler of course.

So, mocking an opposing coach because his QB just blew the game (a game in which the opposing defenders were spewing bile at both his team and the officiating staff) equates to genocide of 6 million people. Interesting perspective.Shall we compile a list of historical teams that had a nasty player on them? In each case, does the team equal the player? Rhetorically, does one bad apple really spoil the bunch? The logic is patently flawed.

Please stop saying logic. Please. That word has to be the second most abused word on this message board, after shtick.

Incorrect. The topic 3 are:#3. logic#2. schtick#1. toxic waste

With the amount of toxic waste usually around, it not used nearly enough.

 

[DMaker]

Most of the great teams were real good AND had some class.

I'm sorry, please clarify for me. By "class," do you mean Buddy Ryan paying his players to cause injury, or do you mean Kimo doing it for free?-=kwantam

And the 85 Bears running "The Refridgerator" Perry in for a touchdown while being up big late in the Super Bowl was classy? Oh, and the "Superbowl Shuffle" music video, that was certainly classy?

Excellent posts. Good luck swimming upstream against the Patriots bashing.

If you are going to call out someone for being classless you had better get your facts correct before you start typing. The Bears used the Fridge in the backfield ALL SEASON in goalline situations since he was such an lead effective blocker. On occasion they had found that they could catch the D waiting for Payton by feeding the lead blocker Fridge the ball. In case you didn't know the touchdown Fridge pounded in during the Super Bowl was his 3rd TD of the year (2 rushing and 1 receiving). If you truly think that using a goal line battering ram that has worked all year long is disrespecting the '85 Patriots you need to get out more. Are you suggesting that the Bears should have taken a knee or punted? Besides don't the Pats currently use Vrabel as an extremely effective goalline weapon Mr. Kettle? I'm sorry your team ran into a buzzsaw over 2 decades ago but at some point you need to let it go. Yes, I was ashamed as a fan that they put out the Super Bowl Shuffle. Don't forget, the Patriots also put out a cheesy video in 1985 (where they push a fridge off a cliff). The only difference is theirs was quickly forgotten as they didn't back it up. Stay classy Pats fans.

Are kidding me? The Superbowl shuffle was the most classless thing I ever saw an NFL team do...and it was led by the Rockstar wannebe QB Jim McMahon who was also caught mooning during a game. Complete tool. Are you telling me that Grogan and the entire Pats team got together to put together a video of pushing a Fridge off a cliff. I'd like to see a clip. Was it after the ego-driven Super Bowl shuffle...does it even compare to the Shuffle?As far as the Fridge punching it in for a TD. Your team was leading 37-3 at the end of the 3rd quarter. The Pats were done. The Fridge was the tailback in the game. It was not a misdirection play. Everyone knew he was getting the ball. Sweetness who never scored a TD in the Superbowl wasn't given a chance. You telling me that was classy...I have no problem with running up the score. If the Pats line up Vince Wilfork as tailback when the game is already out of hand in the Super Bowl for a cheap TD, then you can call them classless as well. But it is clear, the '85 Bears were classless.

 

[Ryan_21]

All I can say about this is that if the 1985 Bears played NE, they would destroy them and I hate the Bears. Early 90's Dallas would probably also win.Boller...c'mon.

I believe Mike Ditka even stated himself that if they played, the 85 Bears defense wouldnt be able to stop the Pats. He probably knows a little more about it than most people.

 

[Phlash]

All I can say about this is that if the 1985 Bears played NE, they would destroy them and I hate the Bears. Early 90's Dallas would probably also win.Boller...c'mon.

I believe Mike Ditka even stated himself that if they played, the 85 Bears defense wouldnt be able to stop the Pats. He probably knows a little more about it than most people.

Does that really even warrant discussion? He's an NFL coach, not a keyboard jockey, how could he possibly know more about football than one of us?

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

All I can say about this is that if the 1985 Bears played NE, they would destroy them and I hate the Bears. Early 90's Dallas would probably also win.

Boller...c'mon.

I believe Mike Ditka even stated himself that if they played, the 85 Bears defense wouldnt be able to stop the Pats. He probably knows a little more about it than most people.

Does that really even warrant discussion? He's an NFL coach, not a keyboard jockey, how could he possibly know more about football than one of us?

 

[Jercules]

The 2007 Dolphins could beat the '85 Bears. The US population is larger, and a larger percentage of young men are getting into football because it is currently as popular as ever. Players are bigger, faster, and more talented than ever before (the Fridge, for instance, was a rarity in 1985 at 300+ pounds. Obviously that's not the case now).

You could say that, relative to the rest of the '85 NFL, the Bears were amazing, whereas the '07 Pats, relative to the rest of today's NFL, are only good, and therefore the '85 Bears are better - but then really all you can do is compare records (and nevermind those "there was better competition back then" arguments - how do you know that, other than looking at scores and seeing less blowouts for one team than for the other? And if one team had less blowouts, do you then conclude that they're better, because the competition was obviously more stout? That's pretty backwards).

But back to the original point - to say that the '85 Bears could literally play any team today and win is just silly.

 

[Ned]

The difference.. isn't that the Pat's are so "the best team of all time", it's the quality of the league overall. Last years Colts would probably beat them.

So in essence.. they're the best we've got now... but, the league isn't as competitive as it was in the past. And they're not really having to deal with that. Look at the 90's Cowboys and 49ers... it was like a volley of giants to see who was going to the Superbowl.

I discussed the Cowboys in another post today, so might as well carry over here.....The 1992 Cowboys had 3 losses, one of which was a 31-7 loss to the Eagles. They also lost a home game to the 6-10 L.A. Rams.

The 1993 Cowboys lost 4 games including a 19 point loss to the 4-12 Redskins and a 13 point loss to the 6-10 Falcons.

The 94 49ers lost 3 games including a 40-8 loss to the Eagles who only won 6 other games all year long. Oh and the game was in SF.

The 1995 Cowboys lost 4 games including getting swept by the 6-10(4 win team otherwise) Washington Redskins.

Those teams are overrated imo. Great teams shouldn't lose games like the ones I listed.

it ceases to amaze me that posts like this always get thrown to the side in these types of threads. how dare facts get in the way of a good pissing match. assani