Ranking the most talented Patriots teams in NFL history - Page 12 - New England Patriots Forums

***AndyJohnson*** · 07-03-2009, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurdly Metro

Now you sound like ol' Bubba Clinton. Depends what is is huh? I am not familiar with the Andy Johnson Dictionary definition of the word talent but thank you for the explanation. IMO, your definition confuses talent with performance. I'd prefer to go by the Websters definition.
tal·ent
Pronunciation:\ˈta-lənt\
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English, from Old English talente, from Latin talenta, plural of talentum unit of weight or money, from Greek talanton pan of a scale, weight; akin to Greek tlēnai to bear; in senses 2–5, from the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14–30 — more at tolerate
Date:before 12th century
1 a: any of several ancient units of weight b: a unit of value equal to the value of a talent of gold or silver
2archaic : a characteristic feature, aptitude, or disposition of a person or animal
3: the natural endowments of a person
4 a: a special often athletic, creative, or artistic aptitude b: general intelligence or mental power : ability
5: a person of talent or a group of persons of talent in a field or activity

I think most people understand talent with regard to sport as aptitude or capability. Let me ask you this Andy. Is it possible to not perform up to your talent level/capability/aptitude on a given day?

The '07 Pats played at something less than their full potential in SB 42. If they had played to their 100% talent they probably win going away. It still was almost enough and may have been on another day (Asante hangs on for an INT, Rodney jars the ball loose from Tyree, etc.). But the Giants played to their potential more fully and though less talented overall it was enough to overcome the deficit on that day. Same with Douglas vs. Tyson, Gardner vs. Karelin, and Villanova vs. Georgetown. Again, I don't see how anyone can legitimately argue that talent always wins out.

Is it impossible for you to understand that I include competitiveness, clutch ability, playing your best when it matters the most, and achieving the goal you set out to as part of talent?
Rodney Harrison had a lot of talent, but not being able to stop that catch when it matter most, is a characteristic that is included in my definition of talent.
It seems you want talent to be defined as everything that excludes the ability to win, I disagree.

RDS11 · 07-03-2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

I will stand on my opinion that if you have a goal 'good' 'better' or 'best' is defined solely by achieving the goal.
"Better" by any other definition does not overcome acheiving the goal.
A team that does not win the SB cannot, by defintion, be better than a team that did. I think its very simple. The purpose of playing is to win the SB. So play better for 16 consecutive weeks then failing in the 17th does not make you better.
For all of those that are saying the 2007 Pats were better than the 01,03 and 04 Pats, are you saying they were better than the 2007 Giants? If so, why?

Using this logic, does it means that the 43 Super Bowl winners are the 43 best teams from the Super Bowl era ?
IMO, it's a reach...as I said previously, the 2nd best team from a given season might have won the Super Bowl in any other year. It just happen than on that year 1 team was better.

Also, that's not a definition you can apply on most sports. For example, would you say that James Douglas is better than Muhammad Ali ?? Well, Ali lost the title to Leon Spinks who lost to...who lost to Mike Tyson who lost to Douglas. All it shows, is that at the time Spinks was better than Ali. But you can't assume that Douglas would have beaten Ali.
This is why, again IMO, you can't use this definition of talent when evaluating team, or boxers for that matter, from different years/era.

RDS11 · 07-03-2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PYPER

Lets' compare the 2003 and 2007 defenses. I've never been a big fan of rating defenses based on yardage so I'm only going to include the categories that I view as relevant and important.

Yards per attempt (allowed)
2003: 5.64 (Rank 1st)..........2007: 6.43 (Rank 7th)

Touchdown Passes Allowed
2003: 11 (Rank 1st)..........2007: 23 (Rank 18th)

Interceptions
2003: 29 (Rank 1st)..........2007: 19 (Rank 6th)

Sacks
2003: 41 (Rank 6th)..........2007: 47 (Rank 2nd)

Passer Rating Against
2003: 56.2 (Rank 1st)..........2007: 78.1 (Rank 11)
(Note: 2003 defense was more than 10 pts better than 2nd ranked Baltimore)

The 2003 team was very, very good against the pass. That's why I think the 2007 team would not have matched very well against them.
The 2003 allowed 11 TD against 29 picks and a passer rating of 56.2....that's incredible ! It's the equivalent of having Ryan Leaf as the opposing QB over an entire season !

***BradyFTW!*** · 07-03-2009, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maverick4

So now we're going to pre-injury teams since the 2007 teams had injuries to Adalius and to the RB's? Even accounting for injuries, the 2003 and 2004 teams are STILL better than the 2007 team.

No, I wasn't sure what we were going by so I gave separate rankings depending on your preferences.

Quote:

The 2003 and 2004 squads suffered catastrophic and league-leading injury numbers, and still had the best two year winning stretch of anybody in NFL history and also won 2 rings, beating all the top contenders from their conference those years.

Yeah, it was pretty awesome

Quote:

As for the position by position breakdown, Deus is giving great bias in his rankings.

2007 Watson isn't even close to 2003 or 2004 Graham/Fauria especially at blocking or end zone catching.

I agree that the TEs were better in 2003.

Quote:

Hobbs and both safeties in 2007 were nowhere near the level of Poole and Rodney/Eugene from 2003-2004.

2003 and 2004 were two separate years. Are you capable of understanding this simple fact? Because multiple people have pointed it out to you already. In the passage that you quoted, I agreed that the 2003 secondary was probably the best we've ever had. But in 2004 Poole was gone and Law was hurt. We were starting Randall Gay as our #2. 2007 Samuel > 2004 Samuel, Ellis Hobbs > Randall Gay.

Quote:

The funny thing is Deus keeps harping about 18-0 with 1 loss being better than two 14-2 teams with rings, and at the same time will keep saying Brady is better than Manning by arguing about rings and ignoring the total wins and passing stats that Manning has, which are substantial.

Do you even read the posts that you're talking about, or do you just make stuff up? I'm pretty sure that's not what Deus said at all. Not what I said at all either, FWIW. I'll take Brady over Manning every time because Brady has proven superior, with lesser receivers, both indoors and outdoors. Any advantage that Manning has in volume statistics is due purely to playing most of his career in a dome and being surrounded by superior offensive talent, and the numbers bear that out. Plus Brady doesn't turn the ball over in the playoffs, which is significant.