Ranking the most talented Patriots teams in NFL history

[Leave No Doubt]

I guess it depends on how you define talented.

I thought the same thing. My vote goes to the 04 team; back-to-back cap-era SB's says a lot

 

[jeffbiologist]

I'm on crack (I guess) because I'll go with the 04 as #1. Here's the problem : people equate talent with the offensive side of the ball.

#1-the 04 team only lost 2 games (one more than the guys from 07)
#2-the playoff wins were much, much more impressive as they steamrolled the best teams one after the other
#3-the defense of that team was better than the 07 defense (banged up secondary ? yes. but WOW, the rest of the gang was on fire)
#4-fluke, lucky... whatever you say about the 07 team NOT winning, there is something to be said for the 04 team that DID win

Yup,yup, gotta agree with you here! 04 we beat the best O and the best D on consecutive weeks....handily!

And the 02 team is vastly under-appreciated. I was at that last game of the year when we were down by 11 to Miami with 2 minutes to go......a TD, 2pt conversion, a D stop, a field goal to tie and another to WIN....only to have Mr Favre lose to the Jets...or we would be talking about 4 straight SBs! The roster had the same names, so I would have to conclude it had similar talent.

Our 09 team isnt nearly as flush with talent as we were in 04. Paying the D line, TB,wr's & all has thinned our depth without a doubt. We are thinner NOW than we have ever been since BB took over, and will rely on rookies and unproven 2-3 year guys to fill MAJOR holes.

I also think the 85 team was too low. I think there were more guys making the pro bowl from that team than any other. Our LBs and WRs were deep, our DBs were ballhawks and they were more than lucky to win that many games on the road to the SB.

 

[Ring 6]

Are you saying that the 2001 team would beat the 2007 team if they played each other ? I think the 2007 team would win more times than they would lose...the 2001 team beat the Rams by 3 points on a late field goal in the Super Bowl. Stats wise, the 2007 Pats had a better offense than the 2001 Rams...I would assume then that on a 2001 vs 2007 matchup, the 2007 team would score more than 17 points. Heck, they could have taken the lead and never look back.

The team that showed up for SB XXXVI would have beaten the team that showed up for SB XXXXII.
Ultimately, the ability to win the big one is the 'talent' I value most.

 

[Deus Irae]

The team that showed up for SB XXXVI would have beaten the team that showed up for SB XXXXII.
Ultimately, the ability to win the big one is the 'talent' I value most.

And Trent Dilfer was better than Marino, Fouts and Kelly.

 

[VJCPatriot]

The 2008 team does not make the top 10 list. Not only did they miss the playoffs but they didn't have Brady. And no the few snaps he took in game 1 before being lost for the season doesn't count. The 2008 team also sported one of the Pats worst secondaries in recent memory and a luke warm pass rush.

 

[farn]

01 team beats 07 on SB Sunday... as mentionned above. But I might still put the 07 team ahead based on talent.

BUT - I'd still go 04 & 03 as #1 and #2.

In those two years, there was hardly ever a time during games when I thought, "Oh no, we're gonna allow points and blow it !". In 07, I was thinking that in most of the second part of the season and in the playoffs (mind you, what an exciting run).

 

[bagwell368]

I thought about making a thread on ranking from 1 to 10 of the MOST Talented Patriots teams in NFL history based on quality of depth on the roster and individual performances of all the players within that particular year and combined into one team.

After the first 3 Patriots teams which is probably agreed by everyone,I think it gets a little tricky,Getting to the Super Bowl or having a better record is not always the indicator of talent on the roster but sometimes a little bit of luck along the way is the factor,so some may disagree but here is my rankings from #1 being superior best fully stocked talent across the board to #10 which was good but not great.

#1 - 2007 team - Likely the unanimous choice at #1 unless you are on crack
#2 - 2004 team - Team had great depth and won many nail biters
#3 - 2003 team - After week 1,they got together and turned out the lights
#4 - 2008 team - No Brady after a 1/4 of play but still talented than most
#5 - 1995 team - Drew Bledsoe & a cast of talented but little known players
#6 - 1976 team - A loaded championship team with bad fortune
#7 - 2001 team - Brady with a cast of 'who is that?' overachieving players
#8 - 1985 team - Sure they made the SB but talent was below the top 8
#9 - 2006 team - With some AFCCG defense in the 4th qtr they win it all
#10 -1978 team - Fairbanks exit disrupted a championship talented team

I left out a very good 1986 team but I think the 1978 squad was more talented.

#1 '04
#2 '03
#3 '01
#4 '07 - sorry, no SB, no top 3
#5 '76
#6 '85
#7 '96
#8 '06
#9 '86
#10 '64

 

[Wildo7]

#1 '04
#2 '03
#3 '01
#4 '07 - sorry, no SB, no top 3
#5 '76
#6 '85
#7 '96
#8 '06
#9 '86
#10 '64

So you don't think the 2001 Rams were more talented than the Pats?

 

[SHOWTIME15]

hey guys don't forget the 2004 team was voted the 9th greatest team ever by the NFL Network in its America's game series. You have to win a super bowl to be considered truly one of the greats. just be thankful the 07' pats didn't play the 93' cowboys in the super bowl.

 

[TruthSeeker]

01 team beats 07 on SB Sunday... as mentionned above.

No they don't - they didn't have the push rush. Without the incredible pass rush by the Giants, the offense wins the game.

 

[Wildo7]

No they don't - they didn't have the push rush. Without the incredible pass rush by the Giants, the offense wins the game.

Exactly. The more accurate question is how the "Greatest show on turf" would have fared against the best offense of all time (2007 Pats). IMO, the 07 Pats would have obliterated that team. In fact, I think the 07 NYG was better than the Panthers and Rams of 03 and 01, and probably the 04 Eagles.

 

[RayClay]

I think you're shortchanging the '78 team. They set the NFL record for team rushing yards that has stood for over 30 years, despite the fact that the team didn't have a franchise running back. Sam Cunningham was the only back that could even have been considered above average, and he gained a total of 768 yards, less than 25% of the team's total. That was a team that could simply line up and shove it down other team's throats, which was a lot of fun to watch. You hear teams talk all the time about having a tough defense, but that was the the toughest offense I've ever seen. The whole Fairbanks fiasco ruined that season, but as far as talent goes, that team should be right up there.

Haynes and Clayborn at corner were never equalled.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

I dont know how the team that lost the SB can be #1.

1) 2004
2) 2003
3) 2001
4) 2007
5) 1996
6) 1985
7) 1976
8) 2006
9) 2005
10) 1978

As others have said TALENTED is the key word here - For instance David Patten and Troy Brown take a back seat to Wes Welker and Randy Moss ... Not by a lot but definately by something.

 

[Ring 6]

As others have said TALENTED is the key word here - For instance David Patten and Troy Brown take a back seat to Wes Welker and Randy Moss ... Not by a lot but definately by something.

But I include the ability of the team to play well in the clutch as part of talent.

 

[Ring 6]

And Trent Dilfer was better than Marino, Fouts and Kelly.

How does that even apply?
The 2001 Patriots showed up for the SB and won it.
The 2007 Patriots showed up for the SB and lost it.
You can jusge the talent level of those teams on whatever scale you choose, but on mine that fact is the most important.
What in the world does a teams ability to play its best at its biggest moment have to do with Trent Dilfer, Marino, Fouts or Kelly?

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

But I include the ability of the team to play well in the clutch as part of talent.

Yeah,but thats where the difference is in this thread - Its INDIVIDUAL career performances and acheivements mixed together to form a team where you are referring to the ENTIRE team as a version of talent.

Thats why I say a team like the one in 2001 which had a lot of less talented players simply outperformed a team like the 2007 team when it came to playing in the Super Bowl, but does not take away the fact that if you look closely at the talent of the 2001 roster it comes nowhere close to the talent of the 07 roster.

Without doing a lot of unimportant research, I am confident in guessing that many of those 53 players from 01 are probably not in the NFL anymore or are hanging around on teams as 4th or 5th stringers

 

[Wildo7]

How does that even apply?
The 2001 Patriots showed up for the SB and won it.
The 2007 Patriots showed up for the SB and lost it.
You can jusge the talent level of those teams on whatever scale you choose, but on mine that fact is the most important.
What in the world does a teams ability to play its best at its biggest moment have to do with Trent Dilfer, Marino, Fouts or Kelly?

So what you're saying is that the most talented team always wins?

 

[Ring 6]

So what you're saying is that the most talented team always wins?

I guess in big games, yes.
I just think there is more to 'talent' as it relates to NFL football than measurables and ability to perform a task.
There is absolutely no question in my mind that different players react differently to clutch situations. Some play their best under pressure others do not.
Personally I think that quality is the most important that exists in an athlete.

You can take the cumulative 'talent' of all the players on a team and subjectively say who is better, but in the end what separates winning and losing is that quality of reacting to pressure.
Why can't a team possess or lack that ability as the sum of its parts?
If team a can run faster and jump higher but team b focusses under pressure and makes plays when they matter, who really was more talented.

I understand everyone else is trying to separate physical athletic ability from success and accomplishment, but I don't think you can leave the ability to succeed out of talent.

To give an example, in my line of work, over the years, I've seen many people categorized as 'talented' or a 'natural' but I have seen other people work them under the table and outperform them. How does that ability to outwork and get a job done get left out of the definition of 'talent'? In my book it doesn't.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The 1995 team was the 1996 SB team so yes,that was the group I meant - The 1994 team was not so talented but more gutsy than good but that didn't get them far.

The '95 team didn't make the playoffs. Drew started 15 games and was 6-9. Threw more INTS than TD's. The '96 team went to the superbowl, and lost in 2/97. Parcell's flew home alone. Carroll became the HC from '97-99. Our 2001 team played Superbowl XXXVI in 2/02...

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

The '95 team didn't make the playoffs. Drew started 15 games and was 6-9. Threw more INTS than TD's. The '96 team went to the superbowl, and lost in 2/97. Parcell's flew home alone. Carroll became the HC from '97-99. Our 2001 team played Superbowl XXXVI in 2/02...

I stand corrected,Thanks

(I really wish the NFL would start in June and end in December to make it simpler to document basing everything accomplished in the same damn year instead of dragging the season into a portion of the next year )