Ranking the most talented Patriots teams in NFL history - Page 7 - New England Patriots Forums

patsinthesnow · 07-01-2009, 08:36 PM

IMO, the 2006 squad was the least talented of the decade, but one of the gutsiest of the decade. That season was so strange. From week 1 Buffalo scoring on a Brady fumble on the first play and then the pats winning an ugly game- to beating #1 seeded San Diego. Then, watching the worst pats game I have ever seen (over the 07 SB).

I know this is off topic, but if the Pats beat the Colts and won the SB in 2006.would that have been one of the worst SB teams ever? I just feel that way.

***TriplecHamp*** · 07-01-2009, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsinthesnow

IMO, the 2006 squad was the least talented of the decade, but one of the gutsiest of the decade. That season was so strange. From week 1 Buffalo scoring on a Brady fumble on the first play and then the pats winning an ugly game- to beating #1 seeded San Diego. Then, watching the worst pats game I have ever seen (over the 07 SB).

I know this is off topic, but if the Pats beat the Colts and won the SB in 2006.would that have been one of the worst SB teams ever? I just feel that way.

Just like people say that the Giants are one of the worst teams to ever win the SB but at the same time some people here think that the 2007 pats team was the best team ever.

Deus Irae · 07-01-2009, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TriplecHamp

Just like people say that the Giants are one of the worst teams to ever win the SB but at the same time some people here think that the 2007 pats team was the best team ever.

There's no dichotomy there.

***BradyFTW!*** · 07-01-2009, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsinthesnow

IMO, the 2006 squad was the least talented of the decade, but one of the gutsiest of the decade. That season was so strange. From week 1 Buffalo scoring on a Brady fumble on the first play and then the pats winning an ugly game- to beating #1 seeded San Diego. Then, watching the worst pats game I have ever seen (over the 07 SB).

I know this is off topic, but if the Pats beat the Colts and won the SB in 2006.would that have been one of the worst SB teams ever? I just feel that way.

I agree all the way- the Deion Branch thing really hurt us, and it showed quite a bit. IMO the 2005 team might have been less talented, with the gaping hole at ILB after Bruschi's stroke, Duane Starks starting at CB, Rodney getting IRed in September, Colvin just coming back from a multi-year injury, etc.

If the Pats had won the SB in 2006, I think that would have been the most enjoyable one after maybe 2001.

***BradyFTW!*** · 07-01-2009, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

Although I would rank the 2004 team over the 2003 team, the 2003 defense was the best defense the Patriots ever had. That defense gets shortchanged when discussions of the best of NFL history. Not it isn't up there with the 1985 Bears or 2000 Ravens, but I would put it in the top 10-20 of all time. That defense was stingy and opportunistic and hid what was a rather mediocre offense that year (the only year in Brady's career where he couldn't elevate the offense to at least above average level, well and 2001 where they didn't let Brady do too much).

Not to mention that Corey Dillon was one of the best weapons our defense had, in a lot of ways, in 2004. Just for not having Dillon on the other side of the ball, I'm inclined to lean towards the 2003 D.

patsinthesnow · 07-01-2009, 08:52 PM

This is what I remember from the 2006 season:

-Brady was throwing to:Reche Caldwell, Jabar Gaffney, The Raiders 5th string WR (IDK his name).
-I was faster then Corey Dillon.
-Our LBs could not cover a TE for their lives.
-Belichick so scared to use rookie Gostcowski. (same as 07 too)
-A very young Hobbs was very mediocre.
-A defence that gave up 31 points in 30 minutes.
-Did I mention Brady's #1 target was the current Redskins #4 or #5 reciever?
-ALOT of sloppy games.

Absurdly Metro · 07-01-2009, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

You continue to argue from the premise that I accept your limited definition of talent, and I do not.
You don't have to accept mine either, but the US Olympic Hockey team in 1980 had more talent than the Russians in that Olympics, because every quality in them added to achieving their goal. You said they played the game of their lives. That characteristic when talking about THE TEAM THAT PLAYED IN THOSE OLYMPICS is part of what I consider talent.

I have not asked you to adopt my definition of talent. I have answered the question the op posed with an answer that fits my definiton, and have explained my definition. Do you really think you can argue with me that I have to accept your definition of talent? That would be silly, wouldn't it.
Once again, I believe that talent is not how fast you run or how high you jump but how everything about the individual, team, unit, organization that is competing toward a goal adds up to help them achieve that goal, i.e. a championship.
If the goal is winning a championship, I consider 'talent' to be the ability to win a championship, so I cant consider the loser of that championship to be more talented by changing the definition of talented.

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.

***TriplecHamp*** · 07-01-2009, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

There's no dichotomy there.

The Giants were the better Team that year, some here dont give them enough credit. They demean the Giants victory as a "fluke" and built on "a miracle catch". Lemme guess you want "facts" to support my "argument"?

PatsBoy12 · 07-01-2009, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsinthesnow

This is what I remember from the 2006 season:

-Brady was throwing to:Reche Caldwell, Jabar Gaffney, The Raiders 5th string WR (IDK his name).
-I was faster then Corey Dillon.
-Our LBs could not cover a TE for their lives.
-Belichick so scared to use rookie Gostcowski. (same as 07 too)
-A very young Hobbs was very mediocre.
-A defence that gave up 31 points in 30 minutes.
-Did I mention Brady's #1 target was the current Redskins #4 or #5 reciever?
-ALOT of sloppy games.

Doug Gabriel. I probably should have wiped it from my memory too, and I remember all the same painful things. It was awful. I really don't even know how the Pats came so close to representing the AFC in the SB that year. They had no business even being in the playoffs.lol

PatsBoy12 · 07-01-2009, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TriplecHamp

The Giants were the better Team that year, some here dont give them enough credit. They demean the Giants victory as a "fluke" and built on "a miracle catch". Lemme guess you want "facts" to support my "argument"?

I have to disagree, respectfully of course. Unlike some (no disrespect to anyone), I give the Giants credit for what they did. Whether it was an improbable catch, a missed call or two, bad play calling or whatever else I've seen and heard since that game, the Giants brought their A-game and won. They were definitely the better team that day, but they were absolutely not the better team that year.