Deus Irae

The Rams had a playoff game where they scored only 11 points. The "they won/finished" argument is crap.

__________________
When it comes to the Koolaid, take sips not chugs.

There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

spacecrime

So then you rank the 2000 Ravens offense as better than the 2007 offense?

After all, they finished their job and the 2007 Pats did not.

Come on, get real. There is more to winning a superbowl than offense. Defense land special teams play a part, also.

If Seymour and Green don't collide and one of them sacks Eli, if the ball slides of the helmet, if Asante or Meriweather hold onto the balls they could have intercepted, if any one of those things happen, that will make our offense is better than the 99 Rams?

maverick4

That's not what he's saying, you're deliberately twisting his words to make a false argument.

Winning a ring doesn't mean you're automatically in the running for all time best lists.

However, not winning a ring is a serious hole for any player or team or unit trying to make an argument for being best of.

I could maybe see a legit argument being made for a Hall of Fame individual player in a sport who played on lousy teams. But for an offensive or defensive unit, or an entire team on a 'best of' list, in my opinion you need a ring to be considered for the list.

ALP

allright, if only 2 of the top 10 on their list won the SB, then that argument holds no merit here

they didn't look at who finished or not (which would involve offense and DEFEnCE guys), but ONLY at offense

finishing has nothing to do with it, b/c a football team is both offense AND defense, and u need both to win a SB (plus ST, to a lesser extent)

HENCE were only looking at offense, and ONLY the 16 reg season games count


and if the guy who wrote this had his stats right, than the '07 pats would obviously be on top

__________________
A year of no playoffs followed by a year of 1 and done playoffs

...time to get on the ball Bill

tanked_as_usual

with this logic, the 2001 pats offense was batter than the 2007 version.......kind of knuckleheaded

__________________
I love linebackers........I collect 'em........one can never have too many linebackers ~Bill Parcells

tanked_as_usual

their number on the pats offense were wrong........they said 390 yards and 28 points per game and 54 TD's........it was 411 yards and 37 points per game and 67 TD's

__________________
I love linebackers........I collect 'em........one can never have too many linebackers ~Bill Parcells

Snake Eyes

If one were to select criteria for determining the best offense and defense what would be the logical choice?

Perhaps TDs and yardage? Anyone have any other ideas?

Ok, so whoever had the most in those categories would be the winner.

Saying the Rams are the best offense of all time, if they were not #1 in TDs and yardage, because they won the Superbowl is stupid because it completely overlooks the roles that defense and special teams play.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

VJCPatriot

Pats at #2 is not that bad. Besides the offense they had as #1 averaged over 400 ypg and won the superbowl. So I can see how you can make an argument for that Rams team.

__________________

KontradictioN

Since Scottie already posted all of my other points for me, I'll just take this one.

You should really consider that the 2007 Patriots not only set just about every statistical record for NFL offenses, but they were also 18-0 (best record in NFL history) and were one miracle catch away from winning that Super Bowl and finishing the season undefeated. In other words, what you're essentially saying is that the Pats would have to have been the best team in NFL history in order to surpass the Rams.

As far as the statistics go, we overpower the 1999 Rams easily...

2007 Patriots:

1. 589 points scored.
2. 6,580 total yards.
3. 67 touchdowns scored.
4. Passing - 4,731 yards; 50 TDs; 9 INTs.
5. Rushing - 1,849 yards; 17 TDs.

1999 Rams:

1. 526 points scored.
2. 6,412 total yards.
3. 55 touchdowns scored.
4. Passing - 4,353 yards; 42 TDs; 15 INTs.
5. Rushing - 2,059 yards; 13 TDs.

2007 New England Patriots Statistics & Players - Pro-Football-Reference.com

1999 St. Louis Rams Statistics & Players - Pro-Football-Reference.com

So, as you see, we have the 1999 Rams in every single statistical catagory except rushing yards. Conisidering how close we came to winning the whole thing, I think the 2007 Patriots can get a pass.

Also, it should be noted that the Patriots, under Bill Belichick, defeated what was pretty much the exact same Rams team in the Super Bowl two years after they set those offensive records.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Hey Kerry, you suck!

MrTibbs

DUDE what the hell are you talking about and where in the world did you get your stats? Patriots scored the most points EVER and that was per game, TD's and for the season.