Ranking the most talented Patriots teams in NFL history

[patsinthesnow]

IMO, the 2006 squad was the least talented of the decade, but one of the gutsiest of the decade. That season was so strange. From week 1 Buffalo scoring on a Brady fumble on the first play and then the pats winning an ugly game- to beating #1 seeded San Diego. Then, watching the worst pats game I have ever seen (over the 07 SB).

I know this is off topic, but if the Pats beat the Colts and won the SB in 2006.would that have been one of the worst SB teams ever? I just feel that way.

 

[TriplecHamp]

IMO, the 2006 squad was the least talented of the decade, but one of the gutsiest of the decade. That season was so strange. From week 1 Buffalo scoring on a Brady fumble on the first play and then the pats winning an ugly game- to beating #1 seeded San Diego. Then, watching the worst pats game I have ever seen (over the 07 SB).

I know this is off topic, but if the Pats beat the Colts and won the SB in 2006.would that have been one of the worst SB teams ever? I just feel that way.

Just like people say that the Giants are one of the worst teams to ever win the SB but at the same time some people here think that the 2007 pats team was the best team ever.

 

[Deus Irae]

Just like people say that the Giants are one of the worst teams to ever win the SB but at the same time some people here think that the 2007 pats team was the best team ever.

There's no dichotomy there.

 

[BradyFTW!]

IMO, the 2006 squad was the least talented of the decade, but one of the gutsiest of the decade. That season was so strange. From week 1 Buffalo scoring on a Brady fumble on the first play and then the pats winning an ugly game- to beating #1 seeded San Diego. Then, watching the worst pats game I have ever seen (over the 07 SB).

I know this is off topic, but if the Pats beat the Colts and won the SB in 2006.would that have been one of the worst SB teams ever? I just feel that way.

I agree all the way- the Deion Branch thing really hurt us, and it showed quite a bit. IMO the 2005 team might have been less talented, with the gaping hole at ILB after Bruschi's stroke, Duane Starks starting at CB, Rodney getting IRed in September, Colvin just coming back from a multi-year injury, etc.

If the Pats had won the SB in 2006, I think that would have been the most enjoyable one after maybe 2001.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Although I would rank the 2004 team over the 2003 team, the 2003 defense was the best defense the Patriots ever had. That defense gets shortchanged when discussions of the best of NFL history. Not it isn't up there with the 1985 Bears or 2000 Ravens, but I would put it in the top 10-20 of all time. That defense was stingy and opportunistic and hid what was a rather mediocre offense that year (the only year in Brady's career where he couldn't elevate the offense to at least above average level, well and 2001 where they didn't let Brady do too much).

Not to mention that Corey Dillon was one of the best weapons our defense had, in a lot of ways, in 2004. Just for not having Dillon on the other side of the ball, I'm inclined to lean towards the 2003 D.

 

[patsinthesnow]

This is what I remember from the 2006 season:

-Brady was throwing to:Reche Caldwell, Jabar Gaffney, The Raiders 5th string WR (IDK his name).
-I was faster then Corey Dillon.
-Our LBs could not cover a TE for their lives.
-Belichick so scared to use rookie Gostcowski. (same as 07 too)
-A very young Hobbs was very mediocre.
-A defence that gave up 31 points in 30 minutes.
-Did I mention Brady's #1 target was the current Redskins #4 or #5 reciever?
-ALOT of sloppy games.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

You continue to argue from the premise that I accept your limited definition of talent, and I do not.
You don't have to accept mine either, but the US Olympic Hockey team in 1980 had more talent than the Russians in that Olympics, because every quality in them added to achieving their goal. You said they played the game of their lives. That characteristic when talking about THE TEAM THAT PLAYED IN THOSE OLYMPICS is part of what I consider talent.

I have not asked you to adopt my definition of talent. I have answered the question the op posed with an answer that fits my definiton, and have explained my definition. Do you really think you can argue with me that I have to accept your definition of talent? That would be silly, wouldn't it.
Once again, I believe that talent is not how fast you run or how high you jump but how everything about the individual, team, unit, organization that is competing toward a goal adds up to help them achieve that goal, i.e. a championship.
If the goal is winning a championship, I consider 'talent' to be the ability to win a championship, so I cant consider the loser of that championship to be more talented by changing the definition of talented.

Now you sound like ol' Bubba Clinton. Depends what is is huh? I am not familiar with the Andy Johnson Dictionary definition of the word talent but thank you for the explanation. IMO, your definition confuses talent with performance. I'd prefer to go by the Websters definition.
tal·ent
Pronunciation:\ˈta-lənt\
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English, from Old English talente, from Latin talenta, plural of talentum unit of weight or money, from Greek talanton pan of a scale, weight; akin to Greek tlēnai to bear; in senses 2–5, from the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14–30 — more at tolerate
Date:before 12th century
1 a: any of several ancient units of weight b: a unit of value equal to the value of a talent of gold or silver
2archaic : a characteristic feature, aptitude, or disposition of a person or animal
3: the natural endowments of a person
4 a: a special often athletic, creative, or artistic aptitude b: general intelligence or mental power : ability
5: a person of talent or a group of persons of talent in a field or activity

I think most people understand talent with regard to sport as aptitude or capability. Let me ask you this Andy. Is it possible to not perform up to your talent level/capability/aptitude on a given day?

The '07 Pats played at something less than their full potential in SB 42. If they had played to their 100% talent they probably win going away. It still was almost enough and may have been on another day (Asante hangs on for an INT, Rodney jars the ball loose from Tyree, etc.). But the Giants played to their potential more fully and though less talented overall it was enough to overcome the deficit on that day. Same with Douglas vs. Tyson, Gardner vs. Karelin, and Villanova vs. Georgetown. Again, I don't see how anyone can legitimately argue that talent always wins out.

 

[TriplecHamp]

There's no dichotomy there.

:ugh: The Giants were the better Team that year, some here dont give them enough credit. They demean the Giants victory as a "fluke" and built on "a miracle catch". Lemme guess you want "facts" to support my "argument"?

 

[PatsBoy12]

This is what I remember from the 2006 season:

-Brady was throwing to:Reche Caldwell, Jabar Gaffney, The Raiders 5th string WR (IDK his name).
-I was faster then Corey Dillon.
-Our LBs could not cover a TE for their lives.
-Belichick so scared to use rookie Gostcowski. (same as 07 too)
-A very young Hobbs was very mediocre.
-A defence that gave up 31 points in 30 minutes.
-Did I mention Brady's #1 target was the current Redskins #4 or #5 reciever?
-ALOT of sloppy games.

Doug Gabriel. I probably should have wiped it from my memory too, and I remember all the same painful things. It was awful. I really don't even know how the Pats came so close to representing the AFC in the SB that year. They had no business even being in the playoffs.lol

 

[PatsBoy12]

:ugh: The Giants were the better Team that year, some here dont give them enough credit. They demean the Giants victory as a "fluke" and built on "a miracle catch". Lemme guess you want "facts" to support my "argument"?

I have to disagree, respectfully of course. Unlike some (no disrespect to anyone), I give the Giants credit for what they did. Whether it was an improbable catch, a missed call or two, bad play calling or whatever else I've seen and heard since that game, the Giants brought their A-game and won. They were definitely the better team that day, but they were absolutely not the better team that year.

 

[patsinthesnow]

O Doug Gabriel, thanks..

BTW, its not the 2005 team was the least talented, the football gods did not want them to win that year. Didn't they set a record for most injuries in a season?



So yes, the 2006 season is the least talented squad, IMO.

 

[Deus Irae]

:ugh: The Giants were the better Team that year, some here dont give them enough credit. They demean the Giants victory as a "fluke" and built on "a miracle catch". Lemme guess you want "facts" to support my "argument"?

The Giants weren't the better team, that's why. You have no significant amount of facts, really. All you have is one game where the Patriots lost by 3 points when the QB was hobbled and the team's best run blocking O-lineman was lost due to injury.

18-1 (1st on offense, 4th on defense, 1st in differential) is still significantly better than 10-6 (14th on offense, 17th on defense, 13th in differential). It wasn't even a case where you could use the "2nd half" argument the way Patriots fans can when 2001 is brought up, because the Giants were 4-4 in the second half of the season. The Giants got somewhat hot and rode a lot of luck to the title. There's no shame in that, but they weren't close to being a better team than the Patriots. They weren't even the best team in the NFC.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I have to disagree, respectfully of course. Unlike some (no disrespect to anyone), I give the Giants credit for what they did. Whether it was an improbable catch, a missed call or two, bad play calling or whatever else I've seen and heard since that game, the Giants brought their A-game and won. They were definitely the better team that day, but they were absolutely not the better team that year.

Agreed- I think some people are just assuming that it's an insult or disservice to the Giants to say that they weren't the best team. To them, I guess that must mean that victory = talent, and there's no variation in play in any capacity whatsoever.

Would it make people feel better if I said that I also didn't think the 2001 Pats were more talented than the 2001 Rams? They pretty obviously weren't. They were more disciplined, luckier, and better-coached, but they absolutely weren't more talented. And that doesn't mean that they didn't deserve to win the game. It just makes it all the more impressive and memorable that they did. Same with the Giants in 2007.

The 2007 Patriots were more talented than the Giants. They might have been the most talented team in the salary cap era. For facts, I'll point you to the record book that they practically rewrote. But they were soundly outplayed by the Giants in the Super Bowl. The Patriots get to take home the stigma of losing despite being most talented, and the Giants get to take home the Lombardi.

To boil it down to its essence, though, how about this: If Tyree doesn't catch that ball off his helmet, the Pats win the super bowl. If the Pats win the Super Bowl, are they the most talented team? If that's the case, then you're essentially saying that they can't be the most talented team because David Tyree made a helmet catch. That's just ridiculous.

 

[Deus Irae]

To boil it down to its essence, though, how about this: If Tyree doesn't catch that ball off his helmet, the Pats win the super bowl. If the Pats win the Super Bowl, are they the most talented team? If that's the case, then you're essentially saying that they can't be the most talented team because David Tyree made a helmet catch. That's just ridiculous.

They were being debated as perhaps the greatest team ever. Because of the helmet catch, some are now claiming they weren't even the best of 2007. That shows how insane people are when it comes to sports, and I mean in general, not specific individuals.

 

[TriplecHamp]

The Giants weren't the better team, that's why. You have no significant amount of facts, really. All you have is one game where the Patriots lost by 3 points when the QB was hobbled and the team's best run blocking O-lineman was lost due to injury.

18-1 (1st on offense, 4th on defense, 1st in differential) is still significantly better than 10-6 (14th on offense, 17th on defense, 13th in differential). It wasn't even a case where you could use the "2nd half" argument the way Patriots fans can when 2001 is brought up, because the Giants were 4-4 in the second half of the season. The Giants got somewhat hot and rode a lot of luck to the title. There's no shame in that, but they weren't close to being a better team than the Patriots. They weren't even the best team in the NFC.

Who won the Game? The Giants, The Giants were the Better Team. We may have had more tallent but they were the better Team. I have one fact for you....17-14.

 

[TriplecHamp]

They were being debated as perhaps the greatest team ever. Because of the helmet catch, some are now claiming they weren't even the best of 2007. That shows how insane people are when it comes to sports, and I mean in general, not specific individuals.

What if, What if, What if. It happend and the if I rememvber correctly that never won the game for them.

 

[Deus Irae]

Who won the Game? The Giants, The Giants were the Better Team. We may have had more tallent but they were the better Team. I have one fact for you....17-14.

Who won week 17? The Patriots. I have one fact for you..... 38-35.

So, 16-0 regular season plus a 1-1 overall split vs. 10-6 regular season plus a 1-1 overall split. It's still Patriots all the way.

 

[TriplecHamp]

Who won week 17? The Patriots. I have one fact for you..... 38-35.

So, 16-0 regular season plus a 1-1 overall split vs. 10-6 regular season plus a 1-1 overall split. It's still Patriots all the way.

no ring, no glory! Face It the Giants were the better team get over it you cant change it move on. Everybody on the Pats and all the real football fans would rather have that 10-6 1-1 and the ring.

 

[Deus Irae]

no ring, no glory! Face It the Giants were the better team get over it you cant change it move on. Everybody on the Pats and all the real football fans would rather have that 10-6 1-1 and the ring.

The appropriate response would get me banned.

 

[TriplecHamp]

The appropriate response would get me banned.

What are you gonna do, take away my birthday? Do me a favor, lemme have it! The Truth hurts and you know it.