Wildo7

Exactly. The more accurate question is how the "Greatest show on turf" would have fared against the best offense of all time (2007 Pats). IMO, the 07 Pats would have obliterated that team. In fact, I think the 07 NYG was better than the Panthers and Rams of 03 and 01, and probably the 04 Eagles.

RayClay

Haynes and Clayborn at corner were never equalled.

PATRIOTSFANINPA

As others have said TALENTED is the key word here - For instance David Patten and Troy Brown take a back seat to Wes Welker and Randy Moss ... Not by a lot but definately by something.

AndyJohnson

But I include the ability of the team to play well in the clutch as part of talent.

AndyJohnson

How does that even apply?
The 2001 Patriots showed up for the SB and won it.
The 2007 Patriots showed up for the SB and lost it.
You can jusge the talent level of those teams on whatever scale you choose, but on mine that fact is the most important.
What in the world does a teams ability to play its best at its biggest moment have to do with Trent Dilfer, Marino, Fouts or Kelly?

PATRIOTSFANINPA

Yeah,but thats where the difference is in this thread - Its INDIVIDUAL career performances and acheivements mixed together to form a team where you are referring to the ENTIRE team as a version of talent.

Thats why I say a team like the one in 2001 which had a lot of less talented players simply outperformed a team like the 2007 team when it came to playing in the Super Bowl, but does not take away the fact that if you look closely at the talent of the 2001 roster it comes nowhere close to the talent of the 07 roster.

Without doing a lot of unimportant research, I am confident in guessing that many of those 53 players from 01 are probably not in the NFL anymore or are hanging around on teams as 4th or 5th stringers

Wildo7

So what you're saying is that the most talented team always wins?

AndyJohnson

I guess in big games, yes.
I just think there is more to 'talent' as it relates to NFL football than measurables and ability to perform a task.
There is absolutely no question in my mind that different players react differently to clutch situations. Some play their best under pressure others do not.
Personally I think that quality is the most important that exists in an athlete.

You can take the cumulative 'talent' of all the players on a team and subjectively say who is better, but in the end what separates winning and losing is that quality of reacting to pressure.
Why can't a team possess or lack that ability as the sum of its parts?
If team a can run faster and jump higher but team b focusses under pressure and makes plays when they matter, who really was more talented.

I understand everyone else is trying to separate physical athletic ability from success and accomplishment, but I don't think you can leave the ability to succeed out of talent.

To give an example, in my line of work, over the years, I've seen many people categorized as 'talented' or a 'natural' but I have seen other people work them under the table and outperform them. How does that ability to outwork and get a job done get left out of the definition of 'talent'? In my book it doesn't.

MoLewisrocks

The '95 team didn't make the playoffs. Drew started 15 games and was 6-9. Threw more INTS than TD's. The '96 team went to the superbowl, and lost in 2/97. Parcell's flew home alone. Carroll became the HC from '97-99. Our 2001 team played Superbowl XXXVI in 2/02...

PATRIOTSFANINPA

I stand corrected,Thanks

(I really wish the NFL would start in June and end in December to make it simpler to document basing everything accomplished in the same damn year instead of dragging the season into a portion of the next year )