Are the 2012 Pats better than the 2001 SB winning team?

[TruthSeeker]

Man, thinking back, those 2003 & 2004 were sick. They went 14-2 both seasons, and then 3-0 in both postseasons. So they went 34-4 over those two seasons. Just sick. I remember 2003, they had to play the NFL MVP's in back to back games (Peyton Manning and Steve McNair were co-MVP's), Indy had the highest scoring offense, 500+ points, and the Pats held them to 3 points and I believe the Titans to 10 points, amazing. Then 2004, they beat Indy, Pittsburgh and Philly, Pittsburg and Philly had the top two defenses I believe. Just amazing times. 2003 and 2004, best teams in Pat's history.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Man, thinking back, those 2003 & 2004 were sick. They went 14-2 both seasons, and then 3-0 in both postseasons. So they went 34-4 over those two seasons. Just sick.

Considering that they started 2003 with a 2-2 record, it's more like 32-2 which is more impressive and might never be broken..........

 

[TheComeback]

That D was way better than the 2011 version. They were driven by the LB's, the two lawyers (Lawyer Milloy and Ty Law), and a good pass rush from McGinnest and Vrabel, as well as blitzing LB's, who were great tacklers and had good hands (for ints). Old man Otis was at his opportunistic best as well at CB. Hell, even Tebucky played well in that D. The 2003 & 2004 D's blew away 2001 though.

Offensively, not even close, 2011 is lightyears ahead of 2001, though 2001 had a pounding running game.

The 2001 defense ranked 24th in the league by yards, 6th by points. Just something to consider when comparing these teams.

Obviously the 2011 defense isn't on the same level, but the offense is so much better that it was an easy choice for me.

 

[TheComeback]

Not sure how you define a team that didn't reach its objective (SB Champ) as better than one that did. Better at what?
Its like saying the guy who finished second in the race is the better runner because he ran part of the race faster.
I would rank them, leaving 2011 out, because the story isn't done
2003
2004
2001
2007
1996
1985
2006
1976
2010
2005
2009

The OP wouldn't have made this thread if he wanted to include postseason success in the discussion. He's talking about regular season performance.

 

[glm]

I remember 2003, Indy had the highest scoring offense, 500+ points, and the Pats held them to 3 points

That was in 2004...

 

[glm]

The OP wouldn't have made this thread if he wanted to include postseason success in the discussion. He's talking about regular season performance.

2006 is on his list...

 

[Double TE]

My Fave is the team with Dillon that beat the Eagles...2004 it was I believe.

AWESOME!!

 

[glm]

The 2001 defense ranked 24th in the league by yards, 6th by points. Just something to consider when comparing these teams.

What point are you trying to make?

 

[Double TE]

What point are you trying to make?

It was bend don't break?

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, I understand where you are coming from but I do not subscribe to the belief that the better team always win. I absolutely prefer winning and any SB winning team had a better season than a non SB winning team but I would not necessarily say they were a better team.

Your race analogy would make sense if they were to race again and again and the same outcome were to occur. What if the winner came in first because the other runner fell down? Is he better or did he just win? I understand that in football there is no rematch in the playoffs so we are just left to wonder what would have happened but if the 2007 were somehow able to play the 2001 team I would be surprised if the 2007 team would not win 7 out of 10.

The reason you play is to win. I don't know what constitutes 'better' if you don't win.

 

[Ring 6]

The OP wouldn't have made this thread if he wanted to include postseason success in the discussion. He's talking about regular season performance.

He did not say anything about that. It is also silly to talk about which team is better without including postseason.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Not sure how you define a team that didn't reach its objective (SB Champ) as better than one that did. Better at what?
Its like saying the guy who finished second in the race is the better runner because he ran part of the race faster.
I would rank them, leaving 2011 out, because the story isn't done
2003
2004
2001
2007
1996
1985
2006
2010
2005
1976
2009

Small changes..IMO

2004
2003
2001
2007
1996
1985
2006
2005
2010
1976
2009

 

[NSPF]

The reason you play is to win. I don't know what constitutes 'better' if you don't win.

There is luck involved in football, and that's all there is to it. Beyond the obvious instances of it (balls bouncing certain ways, etc), the fact that a team played its best "when it matters most" doesn't mean that the same team would be able to do it again. In football, the playoffs aren't composed of 7 game series. You get one chance. If you lose, tough luck. And, as it turns out, the better team doesn't always win.

Easiest analogy is poker. Obviously, the better player doesn't always win, even if he plays perfectly. Yes, the goal is to win, but one game, or even several games (say three, like the playoffs), isn't enough to conclusively say who the best is, especially if all of the players/teams are good, as they are in the NFL playoffs, and especially if the games were close.

 

[PatsFan24]

2001 Team:

Defense:

DL: McGinest, Seymour and Hamilton
LB: Vrable, Phipher, Ted Johnson, Bruschi, Cox
DB: Milloy, Tebucky, Law, O. Smith


Offense:

QB: TB, Bledsoe
RB: A. Smith, Edwards
WR: Brown, Patten, Charles Johnson
TE: Wiggins
K: Vinatieri
OL: Woody, Compton, Andruzzi, Light, Robinson Randall


I am guessing everyone knows the 2012 team pretty well.


I am thinking the 2012 team is better on O..and by a wide margin but the D...well...not so sure.

Let's see if they win the SB first....

 

[glm]

It was bend don't break?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

 

[Ring 6]

There is luck involved in football, and that's all there is to it. Beyond the obvious instances of it (balls bouncing certain ways, etc), the fact that a team played its best "when it matters most" doesn't mean that the same team would be able to do it again.

Playing best when it matters most is one of the most important aspects of being the best.

In football, the playoffs aren't composed of 7 game series. You get one chance. If you lose, tough luck. And, as it turns out, the better team doesn't always win.

Those are the rules, and therefore those that succeed within the rules are the best.

Easiest analogy is poker. Obviously, the better player doesn't always win, even if he plays perfectly. Yes, the goal is to win, but one game, or even several games (say three, like the playoffs), isn't enough to conclusively say who the best is, especially if all of the players/teams are good, as they are in the NFL playoffs, and especially if the games were close.

That is a terrible analogy.

The goal of 32 teams is to win the SB. Not to be considered the best team and having excuses for not achieving the goal.
The goal is to win the SB so the team that is best at winning the SB is the best team. I don't know how you can take anything but achievement and place it higher than achievement.

 

[NSPF]

Playing best when it matters most is one of the most important aspects of being the best.

Can you prove that this is a repeatable skill?

 

[Ring 6]

Small changes..IMO

2004
2003
2001
2007
1996
1985
2006
2005
2010
1976
2009

The differnce is 03 vs 04 and 05 vs 10.
My thinking:
03 vs 04: 03 beat the toughest schedule in NFL history. IIRC they beat 10 10+ win teams. I also factor in beating the coMVPs back to back the playoffs.

I put 10 ahead of 05 for 14-2 vs 10-6. I assume your reasoning is a playoff win in 05, but it was a wc round win that the 10 team didn't get/need because it earned a bye. The divsional round losses were very similar.
Hard to put 05 ahead for winning in a round 10 got a bye in.

 

[Ring 6]

Can you prove that this is a repeatable skill?

I don't have to, it doesn't matter if its repeatable. You get one chance.

 

[VJCPatriot]

It's not even close on defense. Pats 2001 defense was NASTY. Pats 2012 defense doesn't scare anyone.

2001 Team:

Defense:

DL: McGinest, Seymour and Hamilton
LB: Vrable, Phipher, Ted Johnson, Bruschi, Cox
DB: Milloy, Tebucky, Law, O. Smith


Offense:

QB: TB, Bledsoe
RB: A. Smith, Edwards
WR: Brown, Patten, Charles Johnson
TE: Wiggins
K: Vinatieri
OL: Woody, Compton, Andruzzi, Light, Robinson Randall


I am guessing everyone knows the 2012 team pretty well.


I am thinking the 2012 team is better on O..and by a wide margin but the D...well...not so sure.