arrellbee

In the eyes of Sports Illustrated, the Patriots offense that won more consecutive games than any team in history and 2 superbowls in a row was not one of the top 10 offenses of the last 25 years. However, Marino-led Dolphins and Manning-led Colts - who, unnh, did NOT win a susperbowl - are right there in the list. Interesting. The world is in love with show instead of effect.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mul...content.1.html

Murphys95

I don't necessarily disagree with SI's picks.

It's all arbitrary anyway, but the Pats never had an over-the-top offense. They have been a very "balanced" team over the past 5 seasons.

Loved watching the '81 Chargers BTW.

PonyExpress

I believe the 2004 Patriots were the 2nd best AFC team in the conference's history, trailing only the 1972 Dolphins, and matched only by the '73 Dolphins, and the '78 and '79 Steelers (IOW the '04 Pats were the best AFC team in 25 years). The raw statistics bear that out, including the consecutive regular season wins record, the consecutive playoff wins record, the consecutive overall wins record, and the consecutive games scored first record. Additionally, they ranked 4th overall in scoring offense and 2nd in scoring defense in the NFL. Adding those two totals together equals six, and that combined low score was only matched among AFC SB winners by the teams mentioned above, and exceeded in AFC history among Bowl winners by the '72 Dolphins. However, in no way was the '04 team one of the great offensive teams of the last 25 years.
This is how I ranked my own VERY SUBJECTIVE!!! list:
Something "great" isn't a one year wonder, or even a two year stretch of excellence. So I set the limit at three straight years of offensive dominance for consideration. Also, to me a great offense means points scored, not yardage gained. So I considered how teams ranked in their respective eras in terms of points scored as a measure of their greatness, with "1" being the top scoring team in a given year. Then I added up the totals over a three year stretch or more, and ranked the teams against eachother, taking into SERIOUS consideration SB victories or appearances, and playoff victories and appearances. The fraction next to each team's name means combined offensive ranking divided by consecutive years.

1. StLouis 1999-01: 3/3, 1 SB win, 1 SB loss
2. Dallas 1992-5: 6/3 and 9/4, 3 SB wins
3. San Francisco 1983-9: 27/7, 3 SB wins
4. Denver 1996-8: 7/3 2 SB wins
5. SF 1992-5 : 4/4, 1 SB win (3 NFCCGs)
6. Buffalo 1989-92: 6/3 and 9/4, 4 SB losses
7. Miami 1984-6: 6/3, 1 SB loss, 2 POs, 3 wins (2 AFCCGs)
8. SD 1980-2: 6/3, 3 PO appearances, 3 wins (2 AFCCGs)
9. Indy 2003-5: 5/3, 3 playoff appearances, 3 wins (1 AFCCG)
10. Washington 1989-91: 10/3, 1 SB win, 2 POs, 4 wins


Not surprisingly, 8 of these teams were quarterbacked by HOFers (Manning will make it).

Honorable mention:
Oakland 2000-02: 9/3, 1 SB loss, 3 POs, 4 wins (2 AFCCGs)
Minnesota 1998-00: 11/3, 3 POs, 3 wins, 2 NFCCGs
KC 2002-5: 4/3 and 10/4, 1 playoff appearance, 0 wins
Houston 1988-93: 25/6, 6 PO appearances, 2 wins

Warren Moon, another HOFer, quarterbacked one of these teams (Houston), R. Cunningham, a 2 time MVP (Philly and Minnesota), Gannon, an MVP (Oakland), and Trent Green also QB'd two of these teams (StLouis in '00 when Warner was injured, and KC). My reason for downgrading KC despite their stats, and the reason, I believe, for their lack of victories and playoff success, was their weakness at QB with Green, who despite having 3 potential HOF lineman, a HOF TE and a HOF rb on his team, nearly always struggled in close and late situations. He is the only QB on this list who will never be a HOFer and never won an MVP. Green IMO and not the KC defense is the reason that team never flourished as it should have. Buffalo had very suspect Defenses and made it to SBs, SD had suspect Ds and made it to AFCCGs, Washington had marginal D's and made the POs, SF had a bad one in '93 and made the NFCCG. The list goes on.

Aldogg

I really can't complain about the Pats being put over those offense. The problem with our offense is we spread the ball around too much which makes it hard to make that one offensive superstar like a Moss, nor do we explode every week for 40 points like the Rams and Colts offenses did. We win games, we don't romp teams, pad stats, send probowlers to Hawaii and things that the idiots in the media would notice, we play solid football and win games, which I would rather do. Now if they were looking at top defenses over the last 25 years and we don't get on there, then maybe we have an argument.

__________________

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