More OffSeason Rankings Talk

[PatsBoy12]

Please forgive me if this has already been posted. I looked but could not find it.

Patriots hope to stake claim as NFL's all-time best | NFL News | Sports News | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News

With three Lombardi Trophies in the 2000s, the New England Patriots have staked a claim as the NFL's team of the decade. A fourth Super Bowl and 12 more regular-season victories in 2009 would allow the Patriots to stake their claim as the team for all decades.

New England joined the 1972 Miami Dolphins as the only teams in NFL history to play a perfect regular season, posting a 16-0 mark in 2007. The Patriots also matched the feat of the 1990s Cowboys by winning three Super Bowls in a span of four years (2001-04).

Another Super Bowl in 2009 would allow the Patriots to match the 1970s Steelers and 1980s 49ers with four Lombardi Trophies in a decade. A 12-victory regular season would give New England 114 wins in the decade, breaking the NFL mark of 113 set by the San Francisco 49ers in the 1990s.

Here are the rankings: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...fl/stories/061109dnspogooseranks.44197ec.html

With Tom Brady on the field, the Patriots have won 23 of their last 25 games. It's a credit to the coaching of Bill Belichick that New England won 11 games last season without Brady. New England simply has the best coach and best quarterback in the game. The Patriots also have the game's most prolific tandem of wideouts in Pro Bowlers Randy Moss and Wes Welker. New England has fielded a top-10 defense each of the last three years and has the deepest roster in the NFL.

 

[Urgent]

Of course, the next game is the most important one, and we're just focused on beating the Bills, and so forth.

But that's really cool. 12 wins, huh? That's certainly achievable. A Super Bowl title is really required to make the full claim. Big stakes this season.

 

[Mike the Brit]

I love Gosselin and think that he really knows his stuff, but ... Texans above Cowboys? Raiders above Lions, Bucs, Broncs, Rams, Chiefs? Well, maybe, maybe.

 

[DarrylS]

I love the rhetoric.. but Pittsburgh at #4 that will certainly spur some discussion..

 

[Moe]

I'm moving back to the Dallas area later this year and not really looking forward to being surrounded by Cowboys fans, but am looking forward to getting the Dallas newspaper and seeing Gosselin's column.

 

[jmt57]

I love the rhetoric.. but Pittsburgh at #4 that will certainly spur some discussion..

I was thinking the same thing; I don't see how the Steelers are not ranked either #1 or #2 - unless it is, as you said, done to spur debate, comments and web hits.

 

[ALP]

the ppl the Steelers lost on offense are important...this makes 3 starting OL gone in 2 yrs....that O line could have serius problems, also the comments he makes help to justify it...

just cuz they wont the SB doesnt mean they should be ranked either 1 or 2 for NEXT season....

 

[PatsBoy12]

the ppl the Steelers lost on offense are important...this makes 3 starting OL gone in 2 yrs....that O line could have serius problems, also the comments he makes help to justify it...

just cuz they wont the SB doesnt mean they should be ranked either 1 or 2 for NEXT season....

I slightly disagree. I'll fully admit that what happened in a previous season is not always a true predictor of what will happen in an upcoming campaign. However, I believe still that going by what happened the previous season is a better indicator than off-season acquisitions and other personnel or front office moves. The Steelers won it all and, as such, I feel they should be number 1 on everyone's OFF-SEASON rankings and their reign atop the rankings should only change once the season starts and we have a chance to see them play. That doesn't make them the best team by any stretch. I think it just says that since they were the last team to stand atop the league as champions, they should remain there until they lose.

 

[PatsDparty]

I slightly disagree. I'll fully admit that what happened in a previous season is not always a true predictor of what will happen in an upcoming campaign. However, I believe still that going by what happened the previous season is a better indicator than off-season acquisitions and other personnel or front office moves. The Steelers won it all and, as such, I feel they should be number 1 on everyone's OFF-SEASON rankings and their reign atop the rankings should only change once the season starts and we have a chance to see them play. That doesn't make them the best team by any stretch. I think it just says that since they were the last team to stand atop the league as champions, they should remain there until they lose.

So the Cards should be ranked ahead of the Pats too?

 

[ScottieC]

I slightly disagree. I'll fully admit that what happened in a previous season is not always a true predictor of what will happen in an upcoming campaign. However, I believe still that going by what happened the previous season is a better indicator than off-season acquisitions and other personnel or front office moves. The Steelers won it all and, as such, I feel they should be number 1 on everyone's OFF-SEASON rankings and their reign atop the rankings should only change once the season starts and we have a chance to see them play. That doesn't make them the best team by any stretch. I think it just says that since they were the last team to stand atop the league as champions, they should remain there until they lose.

Again, your Steelers at No.1 is a ranking based on respect for what a team did last year and for a team that does not currently exist in the composition in which it won the SB last year - So that is not fact based, it's emotion.

IF you are going to give the Steelers the No.1 Ranking - You will also HAVE to give the Patriots a ranking behind ALL the other play off teams from last year. Then you would be consistent in your approach to the 2009 team rankings.

 

[ScottieC]

So the Cards should be ranked ahead of the Pats too?

Yes, according to his thought process. All play-off teams would rank above the Patriots.

His thinking is a popular way to approach the rankings. Again, it's not fact based unless you argue WHY the 2009 Steelers are going to be great, Simply stating that they are No. 1 because they won the Super Bowl last year is just completely wrong.

Back it up with info about THIS years Steelers team and their draft picks and Free Agency adds and losses - and how that makes them no.1 and then I'm on board.

 

[PatsBoy12]

So the Cards should be ranked ahead of the Pats too?

Again, your Steelers at No.1 is a ranking based on respect for what a team did last year and for a team that does not currently exist in the composition in which it won the SB last year - So that is not fact based, it's emotion.

IF you are going to give the Steelers the No.1 Ranking - You will also HAVE to give the Patriots a ranking behind ALL the other play off teams from last year. Then you would be consistent in your approach to the 2009 team rankings.

Yes, according to his thought process. All play-off teams would rank above the Patriots.

His thinking is a popular way to approach the rankings. Again, it's not fact based unless you argue WHY the 2009 Steelers are going to be great, Simply stating that they are No. 1 because they won the Super Bowl last year is just completely wrong.

Back it up with info about THIS years Steelers team and their draft picks and Free Agency adds and losses - and how that makes them no.1 and then I'm on board.

You all can attack me all day about it. Frankly, I expected it because that's what happens any time someone says anything other some variation of "NE is the best thing since sliced bread." But I think that I made it clear when I said that ranking a team at the top spot in the off-season based on them winning it last year had nothing to do with whether or not they were the best team in the league. I also said we need the Steelers (and the Patriots for that matter) play to see where they really deserve to be on any list.

Also, particularly to you PatsDParty, my point is only being made with the WINNER in mind. So, I obviously don't think the Cardinals should be ranked higher than the Patriots or really any other team, especially not since they got thumped by the Pats and were in danger of not even making the playoffs. That, my friend, is what you call a knee-jerk reaction. I am talking about the team that won it all. Pittsburgh played better overall than the Patriots did last year. I'm sure everyone here blocked out the thumping said Pats received from said Steelers. Again, that means nothing going into this season, but I don't think the rankings have anything to do with the upcoming season per se. Even with that said, however, I bet if NE won the Super Bowl and weren't ranked number 1 on the preseason ranking charts the following season, there would be a lynch mob going to that writer's door with pitch forks, torches, and a noose.

Guys, this is an off-season ranking. I could argue that the Patriots shouldn't have the top spot either since we don't know how the new players will materialize or even if they will materialize at all. OH, Scottie C, I am a Patriot fan and have been for 14, going on 15, years. I'm happy to see them atop the list. I'm happy any time someone says anything good about the Patriots. However, I still always make the effort to look at things a bit more objectively. In the end, everyone is entitled to think and believe whatever he or she chooses. This is my opinion. None of it matters once the season starts and the players have to earn every inch in an attempt to be the undisputed champion.

But alas, I broke rule number 1 on this board. Thou shalt only say good things about the NE Patriots, or face the barrage thou shalt inevitably receive from the angry mob.

 

[ScottieC]

You all can attack me all day about it. Frankly, I expected it because that's what happens any time someone says anything other some variation of "NE is the best thing since sliced bread." But I think that I made it clear when I said that ranking a team at the top spot in the off-season based on them winning it last year had nothing to do with whether or not they were the best team in the league. I also said we need the Steelers (and the Patriots for that matter) play to see where they really deserve to be on any list.

Also, particularly to you PatsDParty, my point is only being made with the WINNER in mind. So, I obviously don't think the Cardinals should be ranked higher than the Patriots or really any other team, especially not since they got thumped by the Pats and were in danger of not even making the playoffs. That, my friend, is what you call a knee-jerk reaction. I am talking about the team that won it all. Pittsburgh played better overall than the Patriots did last year. I'm sure everyone here blocked out the thumping said Pats received from said Steelers. Again, that means nothing going into this season, but I don't think the rankings have anything to do with the upcoming season per se. Even with that said, however, I bet if NE won the Super Bowl and weren't ranked number 1 on the preseason ranking charts the following season, there would be a lynch mob going to that writer's door with pitch forks, torches, and a noose.

Guys, this is an off-season ranking. I could argue that the Patriots shouldn't have the top spot either since we don't know how the new players will materialize or even if they will materialize at all. OH, Scottie C, I am a Patriot fan and have been for 14, going on 15, years. I'm happy to see them atop the list. I'm happy any time someone says anything good about the Patriots. However, I still always make the effort to look at things a bit more objectively. In the end, everyone is entitled to think and believe whatever he or she chooses. This is my opinion. None of it matters once the season starts and the players have to earn every inch in an attempt to be the undisputed champion.

But alas, I broke rule number 1 on this board. Thou shalt only say good things about the NE Patriots, or face the barrage thou shalt inevitably receive from the angry mob.

Easy there, Bro.

No one is attacking you, infact I said that your thinking on why the Steelers should be No.1 is very popular - I disagree 100% and gave you my thoughts - I've had this discussion before and again, like I said, back up the Steelers and WHY they should be No.1 (outside prior history) and I'm on board and will respect your view point.

NEVER did I say the Patriots should be No.1 - So please don't say I played the Homer Card, I never did.

BTW - I don't know what it has to do with anything, but I've been a fan for over 30 years. So other than me being able to say I've been thru more pain than you with this team, I'm not sure how it's relevant....but there ya go

 

[PatsBoy12]

Easy there, Bro.

No one is attacking you, infact I said that your thinking on why the Steelers should be No.1 is very popular - I disagree 100% and gave you my thoughts - I've had this discussion before and again, like I said, back up the Steelers and WHY they should be No.1 (outside prior history) and I'm on board and will respect your view point.

NEVER did I say the Patriots should be No.1 - So please don't say I played the Homer Card, I never did.

BTW - I don't know what it has to do with anything, but I've been a fan for over 30 years. So other than me being able to say I've been thru more pain than you with this team, I'm not sure how it's relevant....but there ya go

Fair enough. I won't respond to the first part as we well remain at an impasse. To answer the "BTW" part, I simply added how long I've been a fan because I thought you insinuated I was a Steelers fan when you began your initial response with " . . . your Steelers . . ."

Oh, and the part about being a homer. Notice, I didn't name you specifically, though the implication may have been there. Most on this board would, and have in my brief experience, blown a gasket or two whenever anyone (including me) says or has said anything that implies NE overall is not as good as other people say or suggests that maybe we all should temper our collective enthusiasm just a bit until we really see what this year's incarnation of the Patriots really does on the field.

One final thought, I've read a lot of your posts and usually agree with the ideas you express. I'm not here to make an enemy out of you or anyone else on the board. I hope that clears up any misconceptions, beefs, ill-feelings, etc.

 

[ScottieC]

Fair enough. I won't respond to the first part as we well remain at an impasse. To answer the "BTW" part, I simply added how long I've been a fan because I thought you insinuated I was a Steelers fan when you began your initial response with " . . . your Steelers . . ."

Oh, and the part about being a homer. Notice, I didn't name you specifically, though the implication may have been there. Most on this board would, and have in my brief experience, blown a gasket or two whenever anyone (including me) says or has said anything that implies NE overall is not as good as other people say or suggests that maybe we all should temper our collective enthusiasm just a bit until we really see what this year's incarnation of the Patriots really does on the field.

One final thought, I've read a lot of your posts and usually agree with the ideas you express. I'm not here to make an enemy out of you or anyone else on the board. I hope that clears up any misconceptions, beefs, ill-feelings, etc.

No ill-feelings here either. Good stuff.

Keep posting and keep speaking your mind - That's what makes this place so great.

 

[Ring 6]

You all can attack me all day about it. Frankly, I expected it because that's what happens any time someone says anything other some variation of "NE is the best thing since sliced bread." But I think that I made it clear when I said that ranking a team at the top spot in the off-season based on them winning it last year had nothing to do with whether or not they were the best team in the league. I also said we need the Steelers (and the Patriots for that matter) play to see where they really deserve to be on any list.

Also, particularly to you PatsDParty, my point is only being made with the WINNER in mind. So, I obviously don't think the Cardinals should be ranked higher than the Patriots or really any other team, especially not since they got thumped by the Pats and were in danger of not even making the playoffs. That, my friend, is what you call a knee-jerk reaction. I am talking about the team that won it all. Pittsburgh played better overall than the Patriots did last year. I'm sure everyone here blocked out the thumping said Pats received from said Steelers. Again, that means nothing going into this season, but I don't think the rankings have anything to do with the upcoming season per se. Even with that said, however, I bet if NE won the Super Bowl and weren't ranked number 1 on the preseason ranking charts the following season, there would be a lynch mob going to that writer's door with pitch forks, torches, and a noose.

Guys, this is an off-season ranking. I could argue that the Patriots shouldn't have the top spot either since we don't know how the new players will materialize or even if they will materialize at all. OH, Scottie C, I am a Patriot fan and have been for 14, going on 15, years. I'm happy to see them atop the list. I'm happy any time someone says anything good about the Patriots. However, I still always make the effort to look at things a bit more objectively. In the end, everyone is entitled to think and believe whatever he or she chooses. This is my opinion. None of it matters once the season starts and the players have to earn every inch in an attempt to be the undisputed champion.

But alas, I broke rule number 1 on this board. Thou shalt only say good things about the NE Patriots, or face the barrage thou shalt inevitably receive from the angry mob.

Well, there will never be a productive discussion if you think anyone who disagrees with you is lying about the reason and has an agenda.
I think, based on what you believe the rankings should be, Pitt should be #1, but I also think based on what you believe, there shouldn't be rankings because you are putting in a caveat that you havent' seen them play, which applies to everyone.

IMO, the point of rankings is to predict what you think will happen this season.
I that definition, who won the SB last year is not relevant, because you are predicting next years results. I don't think there is a need to 'respect' the champion because they have a Vince Lomabardi trophy for that.

As far as homerism, I think you have to do better than that to agrue that someone who feels the most successful team of the last 10 years, who went 16-0 in 07, then 11-5 without the best QB ever, who is now back is the best team.
Homerism is ignoring the facts. When most people looking at the facts think the Patriots are the best, Pats fans that agree are not homers.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You all can attack me all day about it. Frankly, I expected it because that's what happens any time someone says anything other some variation of "NE is the best thing since sliced bread."

Did you actually read what anyone wrote? They didn't criticize you for failing to be a homer. They criticized you for having an irrational and inconsistent viewpoint. If you want to argue that the Pats aren't the best team, then that's absolutely fine, and it's an argument that most definitely can be made. But you have to make that argument using points that are relevant to this year.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Did you actually read what anyone wrote? They didn't criticize you for failing to be a homer. They criticized you for having an irrational and inconsistent viewpoint. If you want to argue that the Pats aren't the best team, then that's absolutely fine, and it's an argument that most definitely can be made. But you have to make that argument using points that are relevant to this year.

First, I ask what's inconsistent? Secondly, what is relevant to this year? By year do you mean calendar or season?

Well, there will never be a productive discussion if you think anyone who disagrees with you is lying about the reason and has an agenda.
I think, based on what you believe the rankings should be, Pitt should be #1, but I also think based on what you believe, there shouldn't be rankings because you are putting in a caveat that you havent' seen them play, which applies to everyone.

IMO, the point of rankings is to predict what you think will happen this season.
I that definition, who won the SB last year is not relevant, because you are predicting next years results. I don't think there is a need to 'respect' the champion because they have a Vince Lomabardi trophy for that.

As far as homerism, I think you have to do better than that to agrue that someone who feels the most successful team of the last 10 years, who went 16-0 in 07, then 11-5 without the best QB ever, who is now back is the best team.
Homerism is ignoring the facts. When most people looking at the facts think the Patriots are the best, Pats fans that agree are not homers.

Aye, I give. The very premise here is that you think I'm saying that anyone who has a differing viewpoint is a homer, and that's not at all what I'm saying. I don't even think I made that insinuation, though that's certainly a matter of interpretation. However, you and BradyFTW aren't going to come close to making me believe that it doesn't exist here or on any other fan board or in any other town regardless of what's being discussed.

Also, I never once said that the Patriots shouldn't be considered the best team. I'm simply suggesting that we don't really know whether or not they will be the best team and won't know that until the smoke clears and they're the last team standing. How many times have we seen a good team on paper never materialize? I really don't know what else to say. We all will remain at this impasse so whatever. Good day, Sir Moderator.

 

[Dino 6 Rings]

the ppl the Steelers lost on offense are important...this makes 3 starting OL gone in 2 yrs....that O line could have serius problems, also the comments he makes help to justify it...

just cuz they wont the SB doesnt mean they should be ranked either 1 or 2 for NEXT season....

This isn't exactly accurate.

Steelers Starting Oline for the Super Bowl
Starks
Kemoeatu
Hartwig
Stapleton
Colon

Steelers Starting Oline for the upcoming season
Starks
Kemoeatu
Hartwig
Stapleton
Colon

Sure we lost Marvel Smith, but he hasn't started in a while because of his back. Last year we lost Faneca, but also upgraded Center from Mahan to Hartwig. Mahan was a huge error on our part trying to replace Hartings who retired after the 06 season. We also drafted Urbrik from Wisconsin for depth at OG, we still have Essex on the Roster at this point as well for depth.

Now the only starter on Offense we really lost is Nate Washington. Our 3rd Receiver. We have Sweed, a 2nd round draft pick on the roster who we hope can fill in, but did bring in Shaun McDonald who was the top receiver on the lions last year with Calvin Johnson on the roster, just to push the young guy Sweed and compete. So really, the offense isn't that bad off.

 

[PatsDparty]

You all can attack me all day about it. Frankly, I expected it because that's what happens any time someone says anything other some variation of "NE is the best thing since sliced bread." But I think that I made it clear when I said that ranking a team at the top spot in the off-season based on them winning it last year had nothing to do with whether or not they were the best team in the league. I also said we need the Steelers (and the Patriots for that matter) play to see where they really deserve to be on any list.

Also, particularly to you PatsDParty, my point is only being made with the WINNER in mind. So, I obviously don't think the Cardinals should be ranked higher than the Patriots or really any other team, especially not since they got thumped by the Pats and were in danger of not even making the playoffs. That, my friend, is what you call a knee-jerk reaction. I am talking about the team that won it all. Pittsburgh played better overall than the Patriots did last year. I'm sure everyone here blocked out the thumping said Pats received from said Steelers. Again, that means nothing going into this season, but I don't think the rankings have anything to do with the upcoming season per se. Even with that said, however, I bet if NE won the Super Bowl and weren't ranked number 1 on the preseason ranking charts the following season, there would be a lynch mob going to that writer's door with pitch forks, torches, and a noose.

Guys, this is an off-season ranking. I could argue that the Patriots shouldn't have the top spot either since we don't know how the new players will materialize or even if they will materialize at all. OH, Scottie C, I am a Patriot fan and have been for 14, going on 15, years. I'm happy to see them atop the list. I'm happy any time someone says anything good about the Patriots. However, I still always make the effort to look at things a bit more objectively. In the end, everyone is entitled to think and believe whatever he or she chooses. This is my opinion. None of it matters once the season starts and the players have to earn every inch in an attempt to be the undisputed champion.

But alas, I broke rule number 1 on this board. Thou shalt only say good things about the NE Patriots, or face the barrage thou shalt inevitably receive from the angry mob.

Don't take disagreements as personal insults.

I agree with ScottieC that it's a whole new season, and you should look forward, not backwards. If Ben was traded in the offseason, would they still be ranked #1? By your logic they would be b/c they won it all last year?

Not to take anything away from the Steelers, they clearly deserved to win the super bowl last year and were the best team all year, but the Cards had a chance to beat them and couldn't close the deal. If they had, I don't think many people would be calling them the #1 team going into this year.