What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

Which was the better team (1 Viewer)

NWE edition

  • I'm a Pats fan; 2001 Pats

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm a Pats fan; 2007 Pats

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm not a Pats fan; 2001 Pats

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm not a Pats fan; 2007 Pats

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Chase Stuart

Footballguy
Ironic that New England's franchise has seen the greatest Super Bowl losing team and the worst Super Bowl winning team (unless you want to say that the '07 Giants are the worst SB winners ever. I could see that). Curious to see which team you guys think was the better one -- the '01 Pats or the '07 Pats.

 
Give me the Lombardi season any day of the week over this Pats season...and the Pats players would tell you the same.

 
This is a tough one. I'd have to say that the 2007 team is better than the 2001 team, despite the latter winning the SB. The 2001 team won because of making plays when the absolutely needed to (Wiggins' richochet catch in the snow bowl, stuffing the Raiders on 3rd-and-1, Vinatieri's 45yd FG to tie the snow bowl, Patten's 4th down catch in OT in the snow bowl, Troy Brown's punt return TD vs. Pittsburgh, the punt blocked for a TD vs. Pittsburgh, Ty Law's pick 6 vs. the Rams, JR Redmond fighting to get OOB on the SB-winning drive, Troy Brown's huge catch, Adam's SB-winning FG) and a little luck (Tuck Rule). The 2007 team was one play away from perfection, except Eli Manning was able to escape a sure sack and hit Tyree 32 yards down the field with Rodney Harrison having one hand on the ball and draped all over him. The line is thin between "clutch" and "fortunate". Were all the plays the 2001 Pats made clutch, or were some of them fortunate? I think a handful of those plays toe the line. I think Eli's escape and Tyree's catch toes the line. If a SB title hinges on a play (or plays) that toe that line, I'll tip the scales in favor of the team that was better in every other area despite the SB outcome.

 
Which was a better team? If the 2007 Pats played the 2001 Pats 100 times, they'd probably win 90 of them. 2001 might have been a better season, but the 2007 team was the better team.

 
Which was a better team? If the 2007 Pats played the 2001 Pats 100 times, they'd probably win 90 of them. 2001 might have been a better season, but the 2007 team was the better team.
In the Super Bowl or during the regular season?In the big game, 2001 beats 2007 90 times.
 
The 2007 NE team was better than 2001 team, and it isn't close.

I think most people who are not NE homers will agree that their 2001 SB win was pretty flukey; I'm not sure that that team is the worst championship team in NFL history, but it belongs in that discussion. The 2007 squad was legitimately a very good team, despite their coach being a scum bag.

 
Which was a better team? If the 2007 Pats played the 2001 Pats 100 times, they'd probably win 90 of them. 2001 might have been a better season, but the 2007 team was the better team.
In the Super Bowl or during the regular season?In the big game, 2001 beats 2007 90 times.
Why? Did the 2001 team have a clutcher QB? A better playoff coach? Better WRs? A better O-Line? A better D-Line? A better secondary? At LB the two teams were probably pretty even, but outside of that, 2007 was better in every respect, and it's not like 2001 has some magical playoff advantage that 2007 doesn't likewise have.The better team usually wins, whether it's playoffs, regular season, or preseason.
 
Which was a better team? If the 2007 Pats played the 2001 Pats 100 times, they'd probably win 90 of them. 2001 might have been a better season, but the 2007 team was the better team.
In the Super Bowl or during the regular season?In the big game, 2001 beats 2007 90 times.
Why? Did the 2001 team have a clutcher QB? A better playoff coach? Better WRs? A better O-Line? A better D-Line? A better secondary? At LB the two teams were probably pretty even, but outside of that, 2007 was better in every respect, and it's not like 2001 has some magical playoff advantage that 2007 doesn't likewise have.The better team usually wins, whether it's playoffs, regular season, or preseason.
The Pats players said it themselves... they lacked intensity in the '07 bowl.Thus the 2001 team would beat the 2007 team in the bowl 90 times.
 
Give me the Lombardi season any day of the week over this Pats season...and the Pats players would tell you the same.
:goodposting:
The question wasn't which SEASON was better... the question was which TEAM was better.
Both TEAMS had an equal opportunity to prove themselves. The 2001 team (assisted by video or not) made it happen. The 2007 team did not. That's that. It's what the playoffs mean.
 
Overall team, I would have to say the 2007 team. The 2001 team had a better defense, while the 2007 team had a better offense.

 
The real question here is, can the cheaters on the 2007 squad overcome the 2001 team paying off refs?

Should be a nail-biter.

 
Ironic that New England's franchise has seen the greatest Super Bowl losing team and the worst Super Bowl winning team (unless you want to say that the '07 Giants are the worst SB winners ever. I could see that). Curious to see which team you guys think was the better one -- the '01 Pats or the '07 Pats.
The worst was the 05 Steelers. The Seahawks dominated them in that game. They completely controlled the line of scrimmage. Play after play, the Seahawks OL would form a perfect pocket where Hasselbeck had all day to throw. But the crazy penalties were utterly out of control. Hasselbeck getting a huge penalty for making a tackle? The phantom PI call nullifying a great pass for a Seahawks TD? Then you got things like the refs crediting Ben with a TD even tho he clearly did not cross on the replay and after the game admitted he wasn't in. I've never seen a game like that before. That game should have been something like 24-10 Seahawks and instead it was 21-10 Steelers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Which was a better team? If the 2007 Pats played the 2001 Pats 100 times, they'd probably win 90 of them. 2001 might have been a better season, but the 2007 team was the better team.
In the Super Bowl or during the regular season?In the big game, 2001 beats 2007 90 times.
Why? Did the 2001 team have a clutcher QB? A better playoff coach? Better WRs? A better O-Line? A better D-Line? A better secondary? At LB the two teams were probably pretty even, but outside of that, 2007 was better in every respect, and it's not like 2001 has some magical playoff advantage that 2007 doesn't likewise have.The better team usually wins, whether it's playoffs, regular season, or preseason.
The Pats players said it themselves... they lacked intensity in the '07 bowl.Thus the 2001 team would beat the 2007 team in the bowl 90 times.
So because the 2007 team lacked intensity in one game, and the 2001 team did not lack intensity in one game, we can then extrapolate that the 2007 team would lack intensity in 100 straight games, while the 2001 team would not? And, further, we can extrapolate that that difference in intensity would have been able to make up for a ridiculous difference in talent at an unbelievably consistent rate? Do you think this year's Giants would beat the Pats 90 times out of 100 because they played with more intensity yesterday? That's the sort of after-the-fact justification that borders on the outright absurd. Give me talent over "swagger" any day of the week, and three times on Sundays.There's no team in history that could beat the 2007 Pats 90 times out of 100- most certainly not the 2001 Pats.
Give me the Lombardi season any day of the week over this Pats season...and the Pats players would tell you the same.
:yes:
The question wasn't which SEASON was better... the question was which TEAM was better.
Both TEAMS had an equal opportunity to prove themselves. The 2001 team (assisted by video or not) made it happen. The 2007 team did not. That's that. It's what the playoffs mean.
Oh, okay, I got it. The better team always wins. Makes perfect sense... assuming we ignore the fact that only once in history has a team gone undefeated, and there are dozens of examples every year of teams splitting at least one series, neither of which could possibly happen if the better team did, in fact, always win.The 2001 team had a better season. The 2001 team was not a better team.Fun excercise. Let's play a game of "let's pretend". Remember on the Giants' game-winning drive when Eli threw a terrible pass, and Samuel went up for it and dropped the sure INT with no Giants in the area? If Samuel comes down with that pass, the Patriots win, go 19-0, and become the generally accepted "best team in history". Since Samuel dropped that pass, the Patriots lost, and are now considered by many to be a worse team than the 2001 team. Does that single play really represent such a dramatic swing? Do you mean that if Samuel's hands were rated an 89 on Madden instead of an 88, the Patriots would be the best team in history, but since they're an 88 instead of an 89, the 2007 Patriots are suddenly at best the 43rd-best team in the league (behind all of the SB champions)?Do you really not see how absurd that is?
Ironic that New England's franchise has seen the greatest Super Bowl losing team and the worst Super Bowl winning team (unless you want to say that the '07 Giants are the worst SB winners ever. I could see that). Curious to see which team you guys think was the better one -- the '01 Pats or the '07 Pats.
The worst was the 05 Steelers. The Seahawks dominated them in that game. They completely controlled the line of scrimmage. Play after play, the Seahawks OL would form a perfect pocket where Hasselbeck had all day to throw. But the crazy penalties were utterly out of control. Hasselbeck getting a huge penalty for making a tackle? The phantom PI call nullifying a great pass for a Seahawks TD? Then you got things like the refs crediting Ben with a TD even tho he clearly did not cross on the replay and after the game admitted he wasn't in. I've never seen a game like that before. That game should have been something like 24-10 Seahawks and instead it was 21-10 Steelers.
That's great. It's also wholly irrelevant. A team cannot be judged solely on the ebb and flow of a single game and a half-dozen hypotheticals that spring up as a result.
 
Ironic that New England's franchise has seen the greatest Super Bowl losing team and the worst Super Bowl winning team (unless you want to say that the '07 Giants are the worst SB winners ever. I could see that). Curious to see which team you guys think was the better one -- the '01 Pats or the '07 Pats.
The worst was the 05 Steelers. The Seahawks dominated them in that game. They completely controlled the line of scrimmage. Play after play, the Seahawks OL would form a perfect pocket where Hasselbeck had all day to throw. But the crazy penalties were utterly out of control. Hasselbeck getting a huge penalty for making a tackle? The phantom PI call nullifying a great pass for a Seahawks TD? Then you got things like the refs crediting Ben with a TD even tho he clearly did not cross on the replay and after the game admitted he wasn't in. I've never seen a game like that before. That game should have been something like 24-10 Seahawks and instead it was 21-10 Steelers.
You dont know wtf you are talking about. :yes:
 
So because the 2007 team lacked intensity in one game, and the 2001 team did not lack intensity in one game, we can then extrapolate that the 2007 team would lack intensity in 100 straight games, while the 2001 team would not? And, further, we can extrapolate that that difference in intensity would have been able to make up for a ridiculous difference in talent at an unbelievably consistent rate? Do you think this year's Giants would beat the Pats 90 times out of 100 because they played with more intensity yesterday? That's the sort of after-the-fact justification that borders on the outright absurd. Give me talent over "swagger" any day of the week, and three times on Sundays.There's no team in history that could beat the 2007 Pats 90 times out of 100- most certainly not the 2001 Pats.
No "we" cant. I can.I am taking the the same 2007 bowl team 100 times (with that lack of intensity) vs the 2001 team. Im not extrapoltaing anything, Im taking them exactly as they were. And thats 90-10 in favor of the '01 squad in the super bowl.
 
So because the 2007 team lacked intensity in one game, and the 2001 team did not lack intensity in one game, we can then extrapolate that the 2007 team would lack intensity in 100 straight games, while the 2001 team would not? And, further, we can extrapolate that that difference in intensity would have been able to make up for a ridiculous difference in talent at an unbelievably consistent rate? Do you think this year's Giants would beat the Pats 90 times out of 100 because they played with more intensity yesterday? That's the sort of after-the-fact justification that borders on the outright absurd. Give me talent over "swagger" any day of the week, and three times on Sundays.There's no team in history that could beat the 2007 Pats 90 times out of 100- most certainly not the 2001 Pats.
No "we" cant. I can.I am taking the the same 2007 bowl team 100 times (with that lack of intensity) vs the 2001 team. Im not extrapoltaing anything, Im taking them exactly as they were. And thats 90-10 in favor of the '01 squad in the super bowl.
But the question wasn't "which team was better, the 2007 Pats playing exactly like they did in the Superbowl and totally disregarding everything else they did for the entire rest of the season or the 2001 Pats playing exactly like they did in the Superbowl and totally disregarding everything else they did for the entire rest of the season", it was "which team was better, the 2007 Pats or the 2001 Pats".Even if you want to believe that the 2007 Pats would come out flat and get their butts beat in game 1, that would only light a fire under them and cause them to bring the hurt in games 2-100. In no universe could the 2001 Pats beat the 2007 Pats 90 times out of 100.
 
So because the 2007 team lacked intensity in one game, and the 2001 team did not lack intensity in one game, we can then extrapolate that the 2007 team would lack intensity in 100 straight games, while the 2001 team would not? And, further, we can extrapolate that that difference in intensity would have been able to make up for a ridiculous difference in talent at an unbelievably consistent rate? Do you think this year's Giants would beat the Pats 90 times out of 100 because they played with more intensity yesterday? That's the sort of after-the-fact justification that borders on the outright absurd. Give me talent over "swagger" any day of the week, and three times on Sundays.There's no team in history that could beat the 2007 Pats 90 times out of 100- most certainly not the 2001 Pats.
No "we" cant. I can.I am taking the the same 2007 bowl team 100 times (with that lack of intensity) vs the 2001 team. Im not extrapoltaing anything, Im taking them exactly as they were. And thats 90-10 in favor of the '01 squad in the super bowl.
But the question wasn't "which team was better, the 2007 Pats playing exactly like they did in the Superbowl and totally disregarding everything else they did for the entire rest of the season or the 2001 Pats playing exactly like they did in the Superbowl and totally disregarding everything else they did for the entire rest of the season", it was "which team was better, the 2007 Pats or the 2001 Pats".Even if you want to believe that the 2007 Pats would come out flat and get their butts beat in game 1, that would only light a fire under them and cause them to bring the hurt in games 2-100. In no universe could the 2001 Pats beat the 2007 Pats 90 times out of 100.
I agreed with you on the non super bowl game - 90/10 for 2007. But put the Lombardi out there and the answer is changed.
 
So because the 2007 team lacked intensity in one game, and the 2001 team did not lack intensity in one game, we can then extrapolate that the 2007 team would lack intensity in 100 straight games, while the 2001 team would not? And, further, we can extrapolate that that difference in intensity would have been able to make up for a ridiculous difference in talent at an unbelievably consistent rate? Do you think this year's Giants would beat the Pats 90 times out of 100 because they played with more intensity yesterday? That's the sort of after-the-fact justification that borders on the outright absurd. Give me talent over "swagger" any day of the week, and three times on Sundays.There's no team in history that could beat the 2007 Pats 90 times out of 100- most certainly not the 2001 Pats.
No "we" cant. I can.I am taking the the same 2007 bowl team 100 times (with that lack of intensity) vs the 2001 team. Im not extrapoltaing anything, Im taking them exactly as they were. And thats 90-10 in favor of the '01 squad in the super bowl.
But the question wasn't "which team was better, the 2007 Pats playing exactly like they did in the Superbowl and totally disregarding everything else they did for the entire rest of the season or the 2001 Pats playing exactly like they did in the Superbowl and totally disregarding everything else they did for the entire rest of the season", it was "which team was better, the 2007 Pats or the 2001 Pats".Even if you want to believe that the 2007 Pats would come out flat and get their butts beat in game 1, that would only light a fire under them and cause them to bring the hurt in games 2-100. In no universe could the 2001 Pats beat the 2007 Pats 90 times out of 100.
I agreed with you on the non super bowl game - 90/10 for 2007. But put the Lombardi out there and the answer is changed.
I still don't get why. 2001 doesn't have anything that 2007 doesn't also have... but 2007 has a lot that 2001 doesn't have.
 
Even as a Pats hater, I can't believe how much credence gets put into one game, albeit the Super Bowl. The 2007 Patriots are, at the very least, a top ten best of all time team regardless of one loss in the big game. The Bills teams in the early 90's were really good too despite not winning any of the games in their 4 consecutive SB appearances. Not enough people are giving credit to regular season accomplishments.

It's amazing to me that if Tyree doesn't make that catch, the 2007 Pats all of a sudden go from a top 3-5 all time team to not being a top 20 team. It doesn't work that way folks. I love that the Pats lost yesterday, but they still earned my respect for everything that they accomplished prior to that game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even as a Pats hater, I can't believe how much credence gets put into one game, albeit the Super Bowl. The 2007 Patriots are, at the very least, a top ten best of all time team regardless of one loss in the big game. The Bills teams in the early 90's were really good too despite not winning any of the games in their 4 consecutive SB appearances. Not enough people are giving credit to regular season accomplishments.It's amazing to me that if Tyree doesn't make that catch, the 2007 Pats all of a sudden go from a top 3-5 all time team to not being a top 20 team. It doesn't work that way folks. I love that the Pats lost yesterday, but they still earned my respect for everything that they accomplished prior to that game.
They will always be behind the Giants of '07.
 
I still don't get why. 2001 doesn't have anything that 2007 doesn't also have... but 2007 has a lot that 2001 doesn't have.
If you played all the games... week 1-16, the '07 team gets the 90-10 advantage. Playoffs? 50-50.SuperBowl? '07 with the 90/10.So overall Id agree with a 80/20 split.
 
Oh, okay, I got it. The better team always wins. Makes perfect sense... assuming we ignore the fact that only once in history has a team gone undefeated, and there are dozens of examples every year of teams splitting at least one series, neither of which could possibly happen if the better team did, in fact, always win.
Why have playoffs or crown a champion at all if you feel this way? If we don't award a special status to the team that wins, it's all rather pointless. We'd may as well randomly select a team and call them champion.
Fun excercise. Let's play a game of "let's pretend". Remember on the Giants' game-winning drive when Eli threw a terrible pass, and Samuel went up for it and dropped the sure INT with no Giants in the area? If Samuel comes down with that pass, the Patriots win, go 19-0, and become the generally accepted "best team in history". Since Samuel dropped that pass, the Patriots lost, and are now considered by many to be a worse team than the 2001 team. Does that single play really represent such a dramatic swing?
Yes. That's what makes sports so interesting. The stakes can be just that high. Go ask Bill Buckner.
Do you mean that if Samuel's hands were rated an 89 on Madden instead of an 88, the Patriots would be the best team in history, but since they're an 88 instead of an 89, the 2007 Patriots are suddenly at best the 43rd-best team in the league (behind all of the SB champions)?
I'm dealing with the real world, not whatever EA and John Madden have going on.
Do you really not see how absurd that is?
Honestly, no. I can see how it may be arbitrary in a sense, but I don't think it's absurd. I wouldn't watch sports if I did.
 
Great poll question.

I ended up going with the 2007 Patriots, but with a lot of hesitation.

The 2001 team has a special place in my heart. But having watched both, I don't see how the 2007 bunch isn't a better team. Getting beaten one time in a hard fought game doesn't change that.

 
2007 is a far better team. I think they just came up against a Giants team that capitalized on a couple of lucky breaks in the game to take them out. They're both good teams. I honestly think NE believed the hype that the NFC is so far inferior. I do believe there's a gap, and playing Dallas and GB isn't playing J'ville and SD. That has an effect. But, at the end of the day, Samuel dropped an easy int to win the game, and merriweather dropped a harder one, but a makeable play. then we have a play that the line stopped playing on that goes for one of the most unbelievable catches. Those three plays were huge, and likely go the other way more times than not. It cost the Pats the season and being titled the greatest ever. But, I still think it's a better team than the 01 team. Put Charlie Weis and his screens on this team, and they slow the pass rush. I think that was the largest tactical mistake the Pats made. They ran sume, but not nearly enough.

 
SSOG said:
BigSteelThrill said:
SSOG said:
So because the 2007 team lacked intensity in one game, and the 2001 team did not lack intensity in one game, we can then extrapolate that the 2007 team would lack intensity in 100 straight games, while the 2001 team would not? And, further, we can extrapolate that that difference in intensity would have been able to make up for a ridiculous difference in talent at an unbelievably consistent rate? Do you think this year's Giants would beat the Pats 90 times out of 100 because they played with more intensity yesterday? That's the sort of after-the-fact justification that borders on the outright absurd. Give me talent over "swagger" any day of the week, and three times on Sundays.There's no team in history that could beat the 2007 Pats 90 times out of 100- most certainly not the 2001 Pats.
No "we" cant. I can.I am taking the the same 2007 bowl team 100 times (with that lack of intensity) vs the 2001 team. Im not extrapoltaing anything, Im taking them exactly as they were. And thats 90-10 in favor of the '01 squad in the super bowl.
But the question wasn't "which team was better, the 2007 Pats playing exactly like they did in the Superbowl and totally disregarding everything else they did for the entire rest of the season or the 2001 Pats playing exactly like they did in the Superbowl and totally disregarding everything else they did for the entire rest of the season", it was "which team was better, the 2007 Pats or the 2001 Pats".Even if you want to believe that the 2007 Pats would come out flat and get their butts beat in game 1, that would only light a fire under them and cause them to bring the hurt in games 2-100. In no universe could the 2001 Pats beat the 2007 Pats 90 times out of 100.
Those are some great posts you wrote and I largely agree with them. I guess what's really at issue is how much terms like "heart", "determination" and "character" mean to someone when ranking teams. Somebody might say that if the 2007 Patriots played without intensity in the biggest game of all or that they couldn't make big plays when it mattered most against an inferior opponent, then that team and those players collectively must lack something essential when it comes to greatness. That's the argument for the 1972 Dolphins as the greatest ever. That team, and that team alone, could not be beaten. Now were the 2007 Patriots flawed in some way, lacking mental toughness perhaps, or was the loss just something that happened on one particular night because of a determined opponent who caught some breaks when it mattered?
 
SSOG said:
Fun excercise. Let's play a game of "let's pretend". Remember on the Giants' game-winning drive when Eli threw a terrible pass, and Samuel went up for it and dropped the sure INT with no Giants in the area? If Samuel comes down with that pass, the Patriots win, go 19-0, and become the generally accepted "best team in history". Since Samuel dropped that pass, the Patriots lost, and are now considered by many to be a worse team than the 2001 team. Does that single play really represent such a dramatic swing? Do you mean that if Samuel's hands were rated an 89 on Madden instead of an 88, the Patriots would be the best team in history, but since they're an 88 instead of an 89, the 2007 Patriots are suddenly at best the 43rd-best team in the league (behind all of the SB champions)?
Okay, let's say the Ravens coordinator does not call that timeout and the Patriots lose that game, and then everything still plays out the same way? At 17-2, would anyone really think this Patriots team is even close to one of the best ever? Besides a few NE homers, I doubt it. Tons of football games can go the other way based on one or two plays, so while you can say the Patriots were one play away from immortality, they were also several plays away from 17-2 or even 16-3.
 
I still don't get why. 2001 doesn't have anything that 2007 doesn't also have... but 2007 has a lot that 2001 doesn't have.
If you played all the games... week 1-16, the '07 team gets the 90-10 advantage. Playoffs? 50-50.SuperBowl? '07 with the 90/10.
Once again, why? Because the 2007 Patriots lost in the superbowl and the 2001 Patriots didn't? If the 2007 Patriots lost in week 12 and the 2001 Patriots didn't, would you say the 2001 Pats have a 90% chance of beating the 2007 Pats in week 12, but only a 10% chance in every other week?
Oh, okay, I got it. The better team always wins. Makes perfect sense... assuming we ignore the fact that only once in history has a team gone undefeated, and there are dozens of examples every year of teams splitting at least one series, neither of which could possibly happen if the better team did, in fact, always win.
Why have playoffs or crown a champion at all if you feel this way? If we don't award a special status to the team that wins, it's all rather pointless. We'd may as well randomly select a team and call them champion.
We crown a champion because that's the way the rules are set up. The rules are whoever scores the most wins. That doesn't make the winning team the best team, it just makes them the winning team. Unless you think a St. Louis Cardinals team that barely won half of its games was the best team in baseball a couple of years ago, I don't see how this is that hard to understand. Do you think the Giants would beat the Patriots 10 times out of 10 this year?Sometimes, the better team loses, plain and simple. This is why nobody ever goes undefeated. If the best team always won, then we'd see an undefeated team pretty much every year.
Do you mean that if Samuel's hands were rated an 89 on Madden instead of an 88, the Patriots would be the best team in history, but since they're an 88 instead of an 89, the 2007 Patriots are suddenly at best the 43rd-best team in the league (behind all of the SB champions)?
I'm dealing with the real world, not whatever EA and John Madden have going on.
I was using that as an analogy to represent Samuel having very, very, very marginally better hands. If you'd prefer, replace the whole "89 vs. 88" comparison with one saying "if Samuel's hands were just 5% better than they really are". Apparently the top 43 teams in history are so closely bunched that the difference between the best team and the 43rd best team is that the 43rd best team's CB1 has 5% worse hands than the first best team.
Fun excercise. Let's play a game of "let's pretend". Remember on the Giants' game-winning drive when Eli threw a terrible pass, and Samuel went up for it and dropped the sure INT with no Giants in the area? If Samuel comes down with that pass, the Patriots win, go 19-0, and become the generally accepted "best team in history". Since Samuel dropped that pass, the Patriots lost, and are now considered by many to be a worse team than the 2001 team. Does that single play really represent such a dramatic swing? Do you mean that if Samuel's hands were rated an 89 on Madden instead of an 88, the Patriots would be the best team in history, but since they're an 88 instead of an 89, the 2007 Patriots are suddenly at best the 43rd-best team in the league (behind all of the SB champions)?
Okay, let's say the Ravens coordinator does not call that timeout and the Patriots lose that game, and then everything still plays out the same way? At 17-2, would anyone really think this Patriots team is even close to one of the best ever? Besides a few NE homers, I doubt it. Tons of football games can go the other way based on one or two plays, so while you can say the Patriots were one play away from immortality, they were also several plays away from 17-2 or even 16-3.
I would. That's what I'm getting at- the people who just rank teams based on won-loss record or play in a single game are doing the sport of football a disservice. The Patriots would be exactly the same team at 17-2 as they are at 18-1, which is the same team they would have been at 19-0. I can't in good conscience say that I think the 19-0 Pats would be one of the best teams ever without saying that the 18-1 or 17-2 Patriots would likewise be.New England's play on the field this season, not their won/loss record or status as champions, merits their inclusion among the greatest teams to ever play the sport of football.
 
I asked myself one question. If the 2001 Pats played the 2007 Giants, would the Pats win? Probably not.

I voted 2007 Pats.

 
Even as a Pats hater, I can't believe how much credence gets put into one game, albeit the Super Bowl. The 2007 Patriots are, at the very least, a top ten best of all time team regardless of one loss in the big game. The Bills teams in the early 90's were really good too despite not winning any of the games in their 4 consecutive SB appearances. Not enough people are giving credit to regular season accomplishments.It's amazing to me that if Tyree doesn't make that catch, the 2007 Pats all of a sudden go from a top 3-5 all time team to not being a top 20 team. It doesn't work that way folks. I love that the Pats lost yesterday, but they still earned my respect for everything that they accomplished prior to that game.
Great post, couldn't agree more. The Giants won the game, congrats to them but they weren't the better team and if they played 10 times the Pats win 8-9.
 
Fun excercise. Let's play a game of "let's pretend". Remember on the Giants' game-winning drive when Eli threw a terrible pass, and Samuel went up for it and dropped the sure INT with no Giants in the area? If Samuel comes down with that pass, the Patriots win, go 19-0, and become the generally accepted "best team in history". Since Samuel dropped that pass, the Patriots lost, and are now considered by many to be a worse team than the 2001 team. Does that single play really represent such a dramatic swing? Do you mean that if Samuel's hands were rated an 89 on Madden instead of an 88, the Patriots would be the best team in history, but since they're an 88 instead of an 89, the 2007 Patriots are suddenly at best the 43rd-best team in the league (behind all of the SB champions)?
Okay, let's say the Ravens coordinator does not call that timeout and the Patriots lose that game, and then everything still plays out the same way? At 17-2, would anyone really think this Patriots team is even close to one of the best ever? Besides a few NE homers, I doubt it. Tons of football games can go the other way based on one or two plays, so while you can say the Patriots were one play away from immortality, they were also several plays away from 17-2 or even 16-3.
Nearly every team is one or two plays away from winning/losing every week. The difference was that the Pats were able to make those plays and win those games where other teams don't. The Pats are one of the best teams ever because they scored the most points ever, had a qb that broke the TD record, a wr that broke the TD record, had a ridiculous margin in nearly all their wins and are in the midst of a modern day dynasty. BTW, I'm the furthest thing from a Pats fan.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top