ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
lots of guys on this board are wayyyyy to results oriented.
I know what you're saying, but results are what it's all about in the final analysis. It's just as bad to be seduced by stats/reputation; too many underachieving teams have proven that. Quite often the best teams aren't the best teams on paper, and coaching can be a huge trump card that makes up for supposed lack of talent (or vice versa, re., Schottenheimer vs. Belichick).
My rankings thus far:
1). Colts
2). tie -- Patriots and Broncos
3). Chargers
4). Ravens
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "Let's just do our jobs and then move onto the next play"
"but results are what it's all about in the final analysis."
no. maybe this is easier to think about in baseball terms:
Scenario 1:
bases loaded, Sox down by a run, 2 outs, bottom of 9th. Ortiz up at the plate. he swings, hits a low liner that goes 3 inches past the diving glove of Jeter. Sox win, Ortiz is a hero, Sox won b/c they were gritty and never gave up say the papers the next day.
Scenario 2:
bases loaded, Sox down by a run, 2 outs, bottom of 9th. Ortiz up at the plate. he swings, hits a low liner that Jeter makes a diving catch on. Sox lose, Jeter is a hero, Yankees win b/c they are clutchier than the Red Sox and came up with a great defensive play.
You know what the difference is in these scenarios? Luck. That's all. Sometimes the ball bounces your way, sometimes it doesn't. But it's folly to predict future performance b/c of a few random bounces of the ball, which is what you're doing if you base your predictions solely off of results.
Gentlemen, I understand your point on variance, "if you play that game 100 times," etc.
But that leaves us in a quandary as to what "best" means, and furthermore, the significance of being a "good" or even "great" team, if you do not win. And yes, that includes winning the big one.
The long and short of it is, one can not say that (for example,) 2006 was a horrible season, because we did not win the big one. But it will be, and should be, remembered as a season when we were one of 31 losing teams in the league. To what degree we were among the losing teams is a matter of draft position.
The best team, in retrospect, always won the game. Preparation, talent, luck, and the rest of it are important inasmuch as they influence results.
But that's what best means, in a football (or other rule/score-defined contest): the team that is best at creating the positive outcome. Two teams try to be the best, in any game, and only one can succeed. That is the drama, above all else, that keeps us watching. Who gives a damn about a football game where they don't have a score?
I think I know what you guys mean, and you know what I mean, so in a way I'm picking a semantic nit here. But in another way, I feel like I should emphasize it.
I remember the 70s through 90s, when the Pats were frequently good, but never great, never "the best." I'm a die-hard Pats guy, so I have a lot of love for Grogan's Heroes, the Al Groh shovel, all of it. I remember being the "best team in the league on paper" a time or two in the 70s.
But the only kind of paper football involves a little triangle of notebook paper, and a guy holding his fingers together and his thumbs in the air to make a goal post. Otherwise, "best" in football is defined as "winning."
You can bet in Vegas on "most likely to win...." but you can't go back to the bookie and say "no no, I bet on the "best" team, you're just misled by the scoreboard."
But last year, the Ravens didn't have McGahee. The Jets didn't have Thomas Jones, The Chiefs still had a shaky Trent Green at QB, didn't have Donnie Edwards or Napoleon Harris, The Broncos didn't have Dre Bly and Travis Henry, The Chargers did have their coaching staff, and didn't have Norv Turner calling the shots, and the Pats didn't have Adalius Thomas, Wes Welker, and Donte' Stallworth. So how do we rank teams NOW is the question? How do we project these changes towards what we think could be NEXT YEAR'S RESULTS???
I see:
Pats as team to beat.
Colts, despite losing Dominic Rhodes, Nick Harper, Cato June, & Mike Doss, they are still a very good team and explosive on offense.
Chargers are going to have to prove they are not in dissarray after their coaching staff was dissassembled. If they're not, they go ahead of the colts and challenge the pats for the top spot.
Broncos are a strong team with Henry running and Bly defending.
Ravens are a force with an improved offense.
Bengals still lack toughness.
Chiefs should be better with Huard and a better D.
Jets will keep getting better and have a much stronger running back.
Jags are still missing a passing game.
Honestly, not trying to be a homer, but with all the additions I see the pats now as the team to beat. I'm sure the draft is gonna make them even stronger in areas of concern. Looking forward to the new season!
I think we all know the Pats, Colts, and Chargers are the top contenders, but better not sleep on the Broncos after they acquired Dre Bly and Travis Henry, and the Ravens after they acquired Willis McGaheee !! Here's how I see the ranking of the AFC's top contenders:
1)Patriots - filled all their holes and reloaded, plus still have 2 first rounders. They almost won it all last year, so look out.
2)Colts - defending champs, they're the best until they're beaten.
3)Chargers - you know they will be a very very determined team this year, and they have toms of talent.
4)Broncos - if Jay Payton comes of age, this team could explode. Bly and Henry are serious upgrades to an already terrific team.
5)Ravens - Don't look now, but that defense is getting an offense. MArk Clayton really developed last year, McNAir will be in his second year with the team, and they replaced the plodding Lewis with the explosive McGahee. Their defense is historic, so don't just assume they aren't that good.
6)Bengals - still gotta prove they can play tough D.
7)Jets - Thomas Jones was a GREAT pickup and they will get better through the draft as well. Mangini will keep them playing tough, smart, and disciplined.
8)Chiefs - with Huard at QB they will be better, and with Edwards and HArris added at LB they will defend better. Could become really tough if they ever get some WR's.
9)Steelers - can they win without Bettis, Porter, and Cowher ?? They still have Roethislberger, Ward, Parker, and a tough D, but they'll have to prove they can still hang with the big boys with a new coach.
10) Jaguars - tough D and good running game, they just can't seem to put it together in the passing game. If they ever do, they could arrive.
??Titans?? - not ready for prime time yet.
yes, we've filled in a lot of the holes and we're looking a lot better on paper, but we don't know how the new pieces are going to work together. for example, how long will it take brady to get in synch with his new WR's? one of the big hits in losing his best receivers in the same year was that TB had gotten comfortable with both of them over time. i don't think we should expect the new guys to be working really well with him until the middle of the season, at best. if our schedule is front-loaded with some tough games, that could be a problem. will maroney develop into the running back that we all think he can be, this year? etc.
for now, the champs are the champs and I'll put the colts first, as i expected us to be put first until someone knocked us off.
the chargers have had a lot talent but they've also had a lot of offseason turmoil, so i think i'd put the pats and bolts in a tie for second.
as for the rest, there are too many "ifs" and unknowns right now. i think you've got the right top ten, i just don't know how to rank them today. for example, if chad has a more typical "pennington year," then the jets are way down the list. if he plays out of his mind and jones steps up, they are way up. i agree with your assessment of the broncos and ravens, just don't know what it's going to mean. i think you're underestimating the steelers, tho. and i agree on the titans.
__________________
It is what it is. It wasn't what it wasn't.
"but results are what it's all about in the final analysis."
no. maybe this is easier to think about in baseball terms:
Scenario 1:
bases loaded, Sox down by a run, 2 outs, bottom of 9th. Ortiz up at the plate. he swings, hits a low liner that goes 3 inches past the diving glove of Jeter. Sox win, Ortiz is a hero, Sox won b/c they were gritty and never gave up say the papers the next day.
Scenario 2:
bases loaded, Sox down by a run, 2 outs, bottom of 9th. Ortiz up at the plate. he swings, hits a low liner that Jeter makes a diving catch on. Sox lose, Jeter is a hero, Yankees win b/c they are clutchier than the Red Sox and came up with a great defensive play.
You know what the difference is in these scenarios? Luck. That's all. Sometimes the ball bounces your way, sometimes it doesn't. But it's folly to predict future performance b/c of a few random bounces of the ball, which is what you're doing if you base your predictions solely off of results.
My mind glazes over via anything baseball related. But aside from that, the Patriots are perhaps the best example available of a team that consistently proves the pundits wrong by winning with allegedly "less talent." Winning consistently over time is what tells the tale. I think it honestly can be argued that the Pats were the best overall TEAM in 2001 although perhaps not the best aggregation of "talent" (on paper) compared to St. Louis.
I feel where you're missing the boat is failing to account for intangibles beyond raw talent, such as system, philosophy (including front office) and coaching. So really, results over time are the only reliable yardstick.
My mind glazes over via anything baseball related. But aside from that, the Patriots are perhaps the best example available of a team that consistently proves the pundits wrong by winning with allegedly "less talent." Winning consistently over time is what tells the tale. I think it honestly can be argued that the Pats were the best overall TEAM in 2001 although perhaps not the best aggregation of "talent" (on paper) compared to St. Louis.
I feel where you're missing the boat is failing to account for intangibles beyond raw talent, such as system, philosophy (including front office) and coaching. So really, results over time are the only reliable yardstick.
Well put, Tune. And they knew everything had to click to win in 2001. They knew they needed to finish incredibly strong. They knew they had to be incredibly prepared. They knew they had to play high-risk, high-reward against the Rams in the SB. BB turned to someone after that game, reportedly, and said "Can you believe we won with this bunch?"
Yeah, I like what this offseason has done for our chances, but I can't see saying the Chargers were the best team in the league last year, as somebody has just said.
By the way, all this talk about playing the game 100 times is speculation. Playing the game once is reality. You can say what you think would happen, what should happen, and what happens on your Madden console. But what happens once on a football field is all we have data for.
My mind glazes over via anything baseball related. But aside from that, the Patriots are perhaps the best example available of a team that consistently proves the pundits wrong by winning with allegedly "less talent." Winning consistently over time is what tells the tale. I think it honestly can be argued that the Pats were the best overall TEAM in 2001 although perhaps not the best aggregation of "talent" (on paper) compared to St. Louis.
I feel where you're missing the boat is failing to account for intangibles beyond raw talent, such as system, philosophy (including front office) and coaching. So really, results over time are the only reliable yardstick.
i completely agree with you. the patriots have won, have beaten teams with more "on paper" talent, by digging deeper at the toughest times when they were exhausted and hurt, when no one else believed in them but themselves, knowing that everybody HAD to gut it out and come through if they were going to win, from Brady and Seymour to the Practice Squad, getting that edge that makes the difference. now that we've added some visible "talent" for a price, i hope that they don't lose that, because it is what has set them apart. i hope that a feeling that there are "other guys who are paid a lot more than me" who have to do the job doesn't gradually creep in.
because, when we've won, we've won it in the trenches, at the most difficult times. watch brady's drive in SB XXXVI. the rams know what's happening but they're powerless to stop it. watch brewski strip the ball in the snow in Foxboro. watch troy brown strip the ball when all seems lost in san diego. that's what this team is about and that's why it's won. if we lose it, we're just another bunch of rich guys playing for the FA bonus or to hit their incentive numbers.
__________________
It is what it is. It wasn't what it wasn't.
Last edited by PatsFanSince74; 03-17-2007 at 10:47 AM..
My mind glazes over via anything baseball related. But aside from that, the Patriots are perhaps the best example available of a team that consistently proves the pundits wrong by winning with allegedly "less talent." Winning consistently over time is what tells the tale. I think it honestly can be argued that the Pats were the best overall TEAM in 2001 although perhaps not the best aggregation of "talent" (on paper) compared to St. Louis.
I feel where you're missing the boat is failing to account for intangibles beyond raw talent, such as system, philosophy (including front office) and coaching. So really, results over time are the only reliable yardstick.
it appears I can't communicate the fact that luck is a crucial part in sports, and you are being extremely shortsighted in only "analyzing" results, if that's what you want to call it.
let's try it this way:
Super Bowl XXV was won by the Giants. So they were the best team, right? Now, what if Norwood had made that FG at the end? Then the Bills would have been the best team - is that what you are saying?
Re: Ranking the AFC contenders...
Linear Mode
