Wildo7

I think the 2005 team was more talented than 2006 personally. In fact I think 2006 and 2002 were the two worst teams of the decade.

jmt57

I think one reason we tend to rank the '76 team higher than the '78 team is that had the Pats got that call against Oakland, most believe they would have gone on to win the Super Bowl. As good as the '78 team was, Pittsburgh and Dallas were clearly the two best teams in the NFL that year.

I know that shouldn't be a factor in a ranking such as this, but I think that plays a part in why Pats fans tend to rank the '76 team as better than the '78 team.

Offensively the '78 team ranked 4th in points scored, 1st in yardage, and 5th in points differential. The Pats were 9th in passing yardage and 1st in rushing yardage - they ran for 3165 yards and had 30 rushing touchdowns that year. On defense they were 13th in points allowed and 9th in yards allowed.

AndyJohnson

I dont know how the team that lost the SB can be #1.

1) 2004
2) 2003
3) 2001
4) 2007
5) 1996
6) 1985
7) 1976
8) 2006
9) 2005
10) 1978

Wildo7

My understanding was that the question was "most talented" not "most successful." If you're just going to rank them based on results then there isn't really any room for disagreement.

farn

I'm on crack (I guess) because I'll go with the 04 as #1. Here's the problem : people equate talent with the offensive side of the ball.

#1-the 04 team only lost 2 games (one more than the guys from 07)
#2-the playoff wins were much, much more impressive as they steamrolled the best teams one after the other
#3-the defense of that team was better than the 07 defense (banged up secondary ? yes. but WOW, the rest of the gang was on fire)
#4-fluke, lucky... whatever you say about the 07 team NOT winning, there is something to be said for the 04 team that DID win

TommyBrady12

i happen to think the 2004 team was better as a whole than the 2007 team. i like good defenses and i simply don't think the 2007 defense was that great. i think the offense covered up the ok defense we had that year. i mean we would be up by 3 tds and teams would have to play catch up all game. the 2004 patriots defense was mean and physical. they played smart and attacked the ball.

__________________

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


"He’s the greatest quarterback to ever play the game. He goes from being a rookie that nobody is expecting anything from, to taking over with people saying he can’t do it, to winning three Super Bowls....It should already be obvious he’s the greatest quarterback to ever have played. "

- Steelers S Troy Polamalu on Tom Brady

AndyJohnson

I guess it depends on how you define talented. I have never thought running faster or jumping higher was a greater talent than the ability to make key plays that result in your team winning. That is a facet of talent that appears to be overlooked when saying a team that didnt win its most important game is more 'talented' that SB Champs.

There is certainly room for disagreement as to where 04,03 or 01 were better, same with 85,96,07 and so on.

Deus Irae

__________________
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.

RDS11

Are you saying that the 2001 team would beat the 2007 team if they played each other ? I think the 2007 team would win more times than they would lose...the 2001 team beat the Rams by 3 points on a late field goal in the Super Bowl. Stats wise, the 2007 Pats had a better offense than the 2001 Rams...I would assume then that on a 2001 vs 2007 matchup, the 2007 team would score more than 17 points. Heck, they could have taken the lead and never look back.

Absurdly Metro

__________________