NFL.com ranks Top 10 offenses in NFL history -- 2007 Pats are not #1 - Page 6 - New England Patriots Forums

glm · 06-15-2009, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wpdougie2180

Apparently so does Marino, Moss(for now), Tim Brown,Chris Carter, Fouts, Butkus, and Sayers and all The 90s Bills just to name a few

But at least we still have Trent Dilfer.

***BradyFTW!*** · 06-15-2009, 01:18 AM

If you're going to argue that the 2007 Pats weren't the best, then whatever, fine. It's just exhibit 500 in the retarded premises that columnists will use to get people talking. But to say that the 1999 Rams were better? Really? Come on...

***BradyFTW!*** · 06-15-2009, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maverick4

Before the 99 Rams, there was the record breaking Vikings offense with Randy Moss. I remember when they didn't make the Superbowl that a lot of people were saying it would seriously hurt their historical legacy since they didn't make the Superbowl and lost in the NFC Championship. And it did hurt their legacy, they've basically been forgotten by many people or not given strong consideration among the all time best offenses.

It's a similar argument for not winning the Superbowl, just different degrees of the same argument. If you were one of the all time best players or teams or units, you should have won a ring.

A lot of people make that argument because a lot of people are stupid. You know, since it was totally the Vikes' offense's fault that the D surrendered 30 points to a falcons team that featured the immortal Chris Chandler at QB.

***Patjew*** · 06-15-2009, 03:27 AM

Never mind, sorry, waste of effort.

***Patjew*** · 06-15-2009, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

A lot of people make that argument because a lot of people are stupid. You know, since it was totally the Vikes' offense's fault that the D surrendered 30 points to a falcons team that featured the immortal Chris Chandler at QB.

Thank you for nicely summing up my deleted replies.

efin98 · 06-15-2009, 05:02 AM

Funny how the 1999 Rams are given the tie breaker over the 2007 Patriots when if not for their own freak stroke of luck on the last play of the Super Bowl they would not have won the game: the Titans' Kevin Dyson was just inches from WINNING, he was barely brought down and held onto for dear life before his knee went down and had he broken free(like he almost did) and scored they would have LOST like the Patriots LOST.

So really, how the hell does a couple of inches from DEFEAT in a worse way than the Patriots' defeat give them the tie breaker when that same stroke of luck could have happened to the Patriots AND the Patriots have across the board better offensive numbers(minus rushing yards)? How?

***maverick4*** · 06-15-2009, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glm

Barry Sanders . . . ?

As I said before, I could see a stronger argument being made for individual players stuck on crappy teams, for all time best discussions. The more players involved in the discussion as you go from individual player to entire offensive or defensive unit, to best team of all time, the lack of a ring becomes more damning.

For Sanders I'm not sure he'd be considered top 3 all time, despite his amazing stats. He still was a flawed running back in that in between his breakaway runs, he'd give a lot of zero or negative yardage runs. He's the RB version of a Dan Marino, a stats machine who was flawed. They didn't play championship style football, so despite their amazing stats aren't part of the top 3 all time discussion. The same thing applies to teams or offensive units. Some offenses can put up monster points but don't play championship-style.

A lot of you whining about the 07 Pats not being considered the all time best offense, would have argued the other way before 07.

***maverick4*** · 06-15-2009, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

You know, since it was totally the Vikes' offense's fault that the D surrendered 30 points to a falcons team that featured the immortal Chris Chandler at QB.

The 1998 Vikings didn't win the game, period. The 2001 Rams and 2007 Patriots offenses also got stuffed, no matter how many excuses are made from those fan bases.

Some of you sound the same way bitter Rams or Colts fans sounded after the Pats beat them in big games from 01-04. Even after getting beat, they'd still claim they had the better team. According to the scoreboard, they didn't.

aurakilla · 06-15-2009, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maverick4

The 1998 Vikings didn't win the game, period. The 2001 Rams and 2007 Patriots offenses also got stuffed, no matter how many excuses are made from those fan bases.

Some of you sound the same way bitter Rams or Colts fans sounded after the Pats beat them in big games from 01-04. Even after getting beat, they'd still claim they had the better team. According to the scoreboard, they didn't.

just curious did u watch the vid in the link?

and none of us sound the same the same in anyway to that . the 07 pats statistically did more then the 1999 rams. the video in the link. IS BASED COMPLETELY ON STATISTICAL PRODUCTION OF THE TEAMS OFFENSE. thus making the point of needing to win the superbowl irrealvent. based on what ur saying half the teams on the list shouldn't even be there then because they didnt even make it to the superbowl.

efin98 · 06-15-2009, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maverick4

Some of you sound the same way bitter Rams or Colts fans sounded after the Pats beat them in big games from 01-04. Even after getting beat, they'd still claim they had the better team. According to the scoreboard, they didn't.

Right the final score ignores how the rest of the game was played

Ignore what actually went on in the game and how it actually came about and how close they were to actually LOSING and the Patriots WINNING or the Titans WINNING and the Rams LOSING because all that matters is the final score