Deus Irae

It's tough to give you criticism or tell you how to do it because you're basically in a position where you are 'inventing' a scoring system that's never going to work to everyone's satisfaction (the nature of trying to make the subjective as objective as possible is that some won't agree with you no matter what you do).

Really, the closest I can think of is something subjective itself, and that's to make it something like:

That would make Wilson a 6, Wilfork a 7, Welker an 8 and Favre a former 9/10 who's now a 6 or 7 (likely a 6 going forward and maybe heading for a 5 or lower season), .... and you'll still have players that required either your executive decision or a form of consensus.

It's a basic application of my general scale of all players:

Camp Fodder
Backup
Stiff/Situational player
Below Avg. starter
Avg starter
Above Avg. starter
Top end starter
Consistent top end/Pro Bowl/All Pro player
All-time Elite

adapted to yours, so I'm sure you could break it down and fit it much better than I did right there.

__________________
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.

maverick4

The 2007 team shouldn't be the top all time team.

The 2004 or 2003 teams would have beaten the 2007 team.

Compared to those championship teams, the 2007 team had less talent at safety, running back, tight end, linebacker, D-line (Ted Washington > Wilfork) and kicker. The 07 team was better at receiver, but that didn't end up meaning squat at the end of the day.

jmt57

To Absurdly Metro:

Great work on those charts!


If there is one thing I would like to see in a future version, that would be a rating based on the performance of a player that specific year, rather than on his career. For example, Leon Gray and John Hannah had the same scores in '76 as in '85. Troy Brown was far more productive in '01 than in '04. The '05 team is not on here, but if it were Corey Dillon should not get the same score in '05 as in '04.

The definitions Deus suggested might be more accurate because they look at the performance and productivity for that season, rather than a player's entire career.

Rob0729

I actually kinda agree with you. I am a defense wins championships kind of person. The 2003 defense was the best the Pats ever had and better than many teams ever had. The 2004 defense was far better than the 2007 defense and the offense was still a top offense. It was the most balanced team the Pats ever had. The Pats' 2007 offense was one of the best offenses in league history, but the defense was average at best. Even if they won the Super Bowl, I would be inclined to put 2004 and 2003 over the 2007 season.

TruthSeeker

Or even worse because a referee chose to not call "in the grasp" or "holding" on that play...

BradyFTW!

Definitely the best explanation I've heard for why it shouldn't be 2007. I still disagree with you, but you're starting from a solid premise and I can how you'd reasonably land at the conclusion that you came to.

__________________
Go Saints!

Deus Irae

1.) By conflating 2003 and 2004, you're 'cheating' about the players. Washington didn't play on the 2004 team, for example.

1.) I don't see how you can make the claim about the tight end position in 2004, since Watson was out with injury as a rookie. I'd call it a wash, personally.

2.) You're notion about the running back spot is insane for 2003

3.) Gostkowksi was fine as a kicker in 2007, so any difference there is minimal.

I could go position by position, but in short, your argument just doesn't work for me.

__________________
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.

PYPER

Talent is nearly impossible to quantify but I agree that both the 2003 and 2004 teams were better than the 2007 team. The 2003 defense was a special group and by far the best we've ever had. It had no weaknesses. Teams couldn't run on us so they were forced to pass. While the yardage rankings against the pass may have falsely led some to believe we were vulnerable through the air, nothing could be further from the truth. The Pats led the league in Int's, fewest TD's allowed, fewest yards per attempt, and held opposing QB's to an average passer rating of 56 which is the lower any defense in the league since the 2002 Bucs. They were also 2nd in the league in defensive completion pct. While the 2007 team shared many of the same players (Bruschi, Vrabel, Seymour, Harrison), all of those players were were either in the peak of their prime or just a lot more healthier (Seymour). And let's not forget about the depth of that team. You have to go back to pre-free agency era to find a deeper team. Don't forget that the 2003 team had a pretty impressive season ending 15 game winning streak.

The 2004 team is a hard team to evaluate b/c the defense was devastated by injuries. Do we evaluate the roster in its healthy state or the roster as it was constituted for the playoffs and Super Bowl? When healthy it was easily superior to 2003 but with the injuries factored in I'd say the opposite was true. While still dangerous through the air, the 2004 team's primary strength was its running game. The 2004 team utilized Corey Dillon to punish opposing teams with long time consuming drives. The second half of the playoff victory over the Colts was an absolute clinic.

The 2007 team was definitely the most talented offensive squad we've had, but their style of play wasn't as conducive to winning. They became an offensive juggernaut that became too dependent on the passing game. I believe the balanced offensive philosophy utilized between 2003-2004 would trump over the aerial exploits of 2007. While Moss and Welker would chew up the replacement secondary of 2004, Ty Law and the rest of the guys from the 2003 team would have managed to hold them in check. Meanwhile, the 2007 defense would have had a much harder go against the 2003 and 2004 Patriots offenses.

Therefore,

1) 2003
2) 2004
3) 2007
4) 1976
5) 2001
6) 1978
7) 2005
8) 2008
9) 1996
10) 1985
11) 1986
12) 2006
13) 1997
14) 1994
15) 1977

__________________

RETURN OF THE DYNASTY...

2 0 0 9

NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS
SUPER BOWL XXXVI, XXXVIII, & XXXIX CHAMPIONS

Deus Irae

They won 18 straight in a single season.

People here simply have lost their minds about that team, and it's sad. They've allowed 3 bad minutes to ruin an otherwise otherworldly season for themselves and for others.

__________________
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.

PYPER

Yes and they lost to an inferior opponent that utilized a very similar style of play that the 2003 & 2004 teams perfected. If they could be shut down and beaten up by that Giants team, why would you doubt the same could happen against our 2003-2004 teams?

That type of style won't shatter any records b/c it shortens games but it also physically dominates opposing defenses so that by the time the 4th quarter rolls around the opposing defense is worn down and not capable of putting up much of a fight.

No one is saying that the 2007 team wasn't great. They were. Their accomplishments speak for themselves. But the same should be understood regarding 2003-2004. Those teams went 34-4 over two years which is the best two season stretch in NFL history.

__________________

RETURN OF THE DYNASTY...

2 0 0 9

NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS
SUPER BOWL XXXVI, XXXVIII, & XXXIX CHAMPIONS