NFL.com ranks Top 10 offenses in NFL history -- 2007 Pats are not #1

[Kontradiction]

NFL Videos: Top 10 offenses

I know that the Pats did not win the Super Bowl and the 1999 Rams did but come on. Statistically speaking (yes, stats... what you normally use to determine if an offense is the best... or at least better than another one), the 2007 Patriots were the best offense in NFL HISTORY.

I guess this is a small victory for Marshall Faulk against the evil Pats. I wonder if he had anything to do with this list?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

NFL Videos: Top 10 offenses

I know that the Pats did not win the Super Bowl and the 1999 Rams did but come on. Statistically speaking (yes, stats... what you normally use to determine if an offense is the best... or at least better than another one), the 2007 Patriots were the best offense in NFL HISTORY.

I guess this is a small victory for Marshall Faulk against the evil Pats. I wonder if he had anything to do with this list?

It could have been made before 2007. . . .

 

[maverick4]

I don't think all time defenses or offenses should be on lists unless they win a ring. Same goes for all time best players.

 

[SyN65]

The 1999 Rams won the Super Bowl. The 2007 Patriots did not.

The Rams deserve the title "Best offense in NFL history". They finished their job.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

NFL Videos: Top 10 offenses

I know that the Pats did not win the Super Bowl and the 1999 Rams did but come on. Statistically speaking (yes, stats... what you normally use to determine if an offense is the best... or at least better than another one), the 2007 Patriots were the best offense in NFL HISTORY.

I guess this is a small victory for Marshall Faulk against the evil Pats. I wonder if he had anything to do with this list?

#2 in the entire history of the nfl ain't bad; puts the pats ahead of some pretty awesome teams and QB's. on the stats, the '99 rams, according to the clip, averaged 400.8 yards per game vs. 358.7 for the '07 pats, 32.9 points per game vs. 28.1 for the pats and scored 66 tds vs 54 for the pats. in addition, they finished the deal and won the SB. so, beyond being homers, what's the argument we're making? let's put an end to all of these discussions and cheer for the pats to win a fourth ring for the Belichick/Brady teams.

 

[ScottieC]

#2 in the entire history of the nfl ain't bad; puts the pats ahead of some pretty awesome teams and QB's. on the stats, the '99 rams, according to the clip, averaged 400.8 yards per game vs. 358.7 for the '07 pats, 32.9 points per game vs. 28.1 for the pats and scored 66 tds vs 54 for the pats. in addition, they finished the deal and won the SB. so, beyond being homers, what's the argument we're making? let's put an end to all of these discussions and cheer for the pats to win a fourth ring for the Belichick/Brady teams.

I saw this as well, The statistics are wrong.

54 td's? Hell, Tommy threw 50 TD's himself. and set the team set the ALL time record for scoring. Count 17 Rushing TD's and.............well, someone can't count. Maybe it's me - but I don't think so.

54 TD's was Tommy's final for the season, I think - So if they are not counting rushing TD's they will need to take a few away from Faulk for 1999.

I mean, I remember the 70 TD thing being a big deal during the season - Am I the only one?

I can get into the other no's, but according to my memory (and about 5min searching), the 2007 Patriots lead ALL categories.

It was set up - Martz and Hater Faulk were with Rich E. doing the countdown.

 

[ScottieC]

I don't think all time defenses or offenses should be on lists unless they win a ring. Same goes for all time best players.

So the outcome of ONE game dictates the fate of the all time history of the game?

So, I guess Tyree is one of the NFL's greatest receivers, huh?

That's like the craziest statement ever. Entertaining!! But nutty as hell.

 

[PYPER]

#2 in the entire history of the nfl ain't bad; puts the pats ahead of some pretty awesome teams and QB's. on the stats, the '99 rams, according to the clip, averaged 400.8 yards per game vs. 358.7 for the '07 pats, 32.9 points per game vs. 28.1 for the pats and scored 66 tds vs 54 for the pats. in addition, they finished the deal and won the SB. so, beyond being homers, what's the argument we're making? let's put an end to all of these discussions and cheer for the pats to win a fourth ring for the Belichick/Brady teams.

Where'd you get those numbers. They're all wrong. The Patriots averaged more points and scored more touchdowns than any team in NFL history. That yardage total is nonsense as well. None of those are correct.

Here are the correct numbers.

411.3 yards per game
36.8 pts per game (NFL record 589 total)
75 TD's (NFL record)

I expect this type of oversight from ESPN but I expect better from the NFL's own network.

 

[aurakilla]

The 1999 Rams won the Super Bowl. The 2007 Patriots did not.

The Rams deserve the title "Best offense in NFL history". They finished their job.

of that list only 2 teams WON the superbowl. #10 and #1, i guess this really does show defense not offense wins championships

 

[PatsBoy12]

I'm not mad at the list. The Rams finished.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Rams had a playoff game where they scored only 11 points. The "they won/finished" argument is crap.

 

[spacecrime]

The 1999 Rams won the Super Bowl. The 2007 Patriots did not.

The Rams deserve the title "Best offense in NFL history". They finished their job.

So then you rank the 2000 Ravens offense as better than the 2007 offense?

After all, they finished their job and the 2007 Pats did not.

Come on, get real. There is more to winning a superbowl than offense. Defense land special teams play a part, also.

If Seymour and Green don't collide and one of them sacks Eli, if the ball slides of the helmet, if Asante or Meriweather hold onto the balls they could have intercepted, if any one of those things happen, that will make our offense is better than the 99 Rams?

 

[maverick4]

So then you rank the 2000 Ravens offense as better than the 2007 offense?

That's not what he's saying, you're deliberately twisting his words to make a false argument.

Winning a ring doesn't mean you're automatically in the running for all time best lists.

However, not winning a ring is a serious hole for any player or team or unit trying to make an argument for being best of.

I could maybe see a legit argument being made for a Hall of Fame individual player in a sport who played on lousy teams. But for an offensive or defensive unit, or an entire team on a 'best of' list, in my opinion you need a ring to be considered for the list.

 

[ALP]

allright, if only 2 of the top 10 on their list won the SB, then that argument holds no merit here

they didn't look at who finished or not (which would involve offense and DEFEnCE guys), but ONLY at offense

finishing has nothing to do with it, b/c a football team is both offense AND defense, and u need both to win a SB (plus ST, to a lesser extent)

HENCE were only looking at offense, and ONLY the 16 reg season games count


and if the guy who wrote this had his stats right, than the '07 pats would obviously be on top

 

[tanked_as_usual]

The 1999 Rams won the Super Bowl. The 2007 Patriots did not.

The Rams deserve the title "Best offense in NFL history". They finished their job.

with this logic, the 2001 pats offense was batter than the 2007 version.......kind of knuckleheaded

 

[tanked_as_usual]

their number on the pats offense were wrong........they said 390 yards and 28 points per game and 54 TD's........it was 411 yards and 37 points per game and 67 TD's

 

[Snake Eyes]

If one were to select criteria for determining the best offense and defense what would be the logical choice?

Perhaps TDs and yardage? Anyone have any other ideas?

Ok, so whoever had the most in those categories would be the winner.

Saying the Rams are the best offense of all time, if they were not #1 in TDs and yardage, because they won the Superbowl is stupid because it completely overlooks the roles that defense and special teams play.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Pats at #2 is not that bad. Besides the offense they had as #1 averaged over 400 ypg and won the superbowl. So I can see how you can make an argument for that Rams team.

 

[Kontradiction]

I don't think all time defenses or offenses should be on lists unless they win a ring. Same goes for all time best players.

Since Scottie already posted all of my other points for me, I'll just take this one.

You should really consider that the 2007 Patriots not only set just about every statistical record for NFL offenses, but they were also 18-0 (best record in NFL history) and were one miracle catch away from winning that Super Bowl and finishing the season undefeated. In other words, what you're essentially saying is that the Pats would have to have been the best team in NFL history in order to surpass the Rams.

As far as the statistics go, we overpower the 1999 Rams easily...

2007 Patriots:

1. 589 points scored.
2. 6,580 total yards.
3. 67 touchdowns scored.
4. Passing - 4,731 yards; 50 TDs; 9 INTs.
5. Rushing - 1,849 yards; 17 TDs.

1999 Rams:

1. 526 points scored.
2. 6,412 total yards.
3. 55 touchdowns scored.
4. Passing - 4,353 yards; 42 TDs; 15 INTs.
5. Rushing - 2,059 yards; 13 TDs.

2007 New England Patriots Statistics & Players - Pro-Football-Reference.com

1999 St. Louis Rams Statistics & Players - Pro-Football-Reference.com

So, as you see, we have the 1999 Rams in every single statistical catagory except rushing yards. Conisidering how close we came to winning the whole thing, I think the 2007 Patriots can get a pass.

Also, it should be noted that the Patriots, under Bill Belichick, defeated what was pretty much the exact same Rams team in the Super Bowl two years after they set those offensive records.

 

[MrTibbs]

#2 in the entire history of the nfl ain't bad; puts the pats ahead of some pretty awesome teams and QB's. on the stats, the '99 rams, according to the clip, averaged 400.8 yards per game vs. 358.7 for the '07 pats, 32.9 points per game vs. 28.1 for the pats and scored 66 tds vs 54 for the pats. in addition, they finished the deal and won the SB. so, beyond being homers, what's the argument we're making? let's put an end to all of these discussions and cheer for the pats to win a fourth ring for the Belichick/Brady teams.

DUDE what the hell are you talking about and where in the world did you get your stats? Patriots scored the most points EVER and that was per game, TD's and for the season.