Best of all time debate

[madinsomniac]

First of all, I respect the Pats and think they are clearly the best team in the league this year, however even if they go 19-0, one cannot objectively judge their team as the best of all time or even really close to that.

I know saying this on a Pats messageboard will likely not find anyone objective enough to realize it yet, but like the Colt-Rams-Vikings (and yes, the steelers of 04) best of all time arguments that were made by almost the exact same “experts” from the national news services , this one too will prove to be premature

To judge such things, one has to break down all the components of the team separately.

Your Starting Quarterback and Receiver Core rivals any other teams in recent memory, (Brady is already in the top 3 QB’s of all time, but still falls behind Montanna and Graham by a unanimous vote of all those old geezers who actually saw them play, and 3 of your top 4 recievers would be the go to receiver elsewhere, and the fourth would be a solid number 2, So I would grade both of those components as all time caliber positions.
Your TE’s, as well, are underrated, and all in all this is the best passing game since the Vikes and rams went wild in the late90’s/early 00’s

But the run game is not anything special by any means, for instance, if this team had to convert 10 consecutive fourth and 2 conversions, how many of those do you think this team would actually try to run for?
And which is really more likely, the team trying to pass late for more points, simply to “prove” something to the rest of the league, or to keep the running stats compiled when teams are playing the pass so heavily the running backs have some room to run and element of surprise from being exposed when they have to run the ball?
Which brings us to the question, compared to the Bears of 85, any of the great steelers or 49r or even cowboys teams, would this run game be even be acknowledged?

The O line is exceptionally good, But if you were compiling a list of the 30 greatest O lines of all time, do you think anyone would think about this one? Solid yes, One of the best of all time, no.

How about the D? If you had a choice of any of the other “great team’s Defenses to win 1 game with, would you really take this one 1st? how about 2nd, 3rd? would you take the linebacking core over the steelers of 78, the DB’s over the Lott led 49rs?


Look, this team is great, the best so far of this decade for sure, don’t think I don’t see that, I just think that overall they have the fortune of having played a great season with a loaded offense and better than average D combined with some good luck in close games and that a bounce here or there and I could have already been over. The 72 dolphins weren’t the best of all time by any means, but they managed an undefeated season. Though a writer for espn last year tried to object that undefeated = best, I have often heard that sometimes even the best of the best lose one to an inferior team. The colts were better than we were in 05, and we won the super bowl.

 

[Brady_12]

The colts were better than we were in 05, and we won the super bowl.

If they were better, then why didn't they beat "us"?

 

[BadMoFo]

Fact of the matter, declaring anyone the best ever is just an opinion. But saying you were the first team to go 19-0 will only strengthen and win any argument in favor of your team.

 

[ClevTrev]

Your Starting Quarterback and Receiver Core rivals any other teams in recent memory, (Brady is already in the top 3 QB’s of all time, but still falls behind Montanna and Graham by a unanimous vote of all those old geezers who actually saw them play, and 3 of your top 4 recievers would be the go to receiver elsewhere, and the fourth would be a solid number 2, So I would grade both of those components as all time caliber positions.
Your TE’s, as well, are underrated, and all in all this is the best passing game since the Vikes and rams went wild in the late90’s/early 00’s

You have a lot of words in your post. Please provide links to confirm your statement above in bold. That portion of your post is about the only thing I could understand. I'd like to see the quotes by all those old geezers.

2005 Super Bowl Champion Pittsburgh Steelers you say were inferior to the Colts that season? How generous of you, but unless you were totally intoxicated during the game, the Steelers beat the Colts in Indy 21-18. Hey, buddy, a win is a win and proves superiority. Nice try.

 

[madinsomniac]

If they were better, then why didn't they beat "us"?

total positional/play by play performace grade outs for the colts were off the charts, steelers graded out as the fifth best team, though till this year that class of five teams at the top were all good enough to have been the top team any other year.

 

[ClevTrev]

total positional/play by play performace grade outs for the colts were off the charts, steelers graded out as the fifth best team, though till this year that class of five teams at the top were all good enough to have been the top team any other year.

Just a clue to send you in the right direction, it's the last team standing that is the champ. This is pretty easy to determine, as they have to win the last game. Statistics mean nothing. It's obvious that you're rattled due to lack of sleep.

 

[madinsomniac]

You have a lot of words in your post. Please provide links to confirm your statement above in bold. That portion of your post is about the only thing I could understand. I'd like to see the quotes by all those old geezers.

2005 Super Bowl Champion Pittsburgh Steelers you say were inferior to the Colts that season? How generous of you, but unless you were totally intoxicated during the game, the Steelers beat the Colts in Indy 21-18. Hey, buddy, a win is a win and proves superiority. Nice try.

The geezers I was refering to was the local sports writers who were debating it in a bar a year or so back. Dr Z from SI agrees with em. The jets beat the steelers this year, the jets are not a superior team to the steelers. The steelers exposed some flaws in the colts game, but no scout in their right mind would have said they were more or even equally talented as they were that year. They were a good team, not a great one. The Pats won in 01 with a fairly average team. the ravens in 00 with a one sided team, niether of those teams were even close to the best team in the league that year

 

[ClevTrev]

The geezers I was refering to was the local sports writers who were debating it in a bar a year or so back. Dr Z from SI agrees with em. The jets beat the steelers this year, the jets are not a superior team to the steelers. The steelers exposed some flaws in the colts game, but no scout in their right mind would have said they were more or even equally talented as they were that year. They were a good team, not a great one. The Pats won in 01 with a fairly average team. the ravens in 00 with a one sided team, niether of those teams were even close to the best team in the league that year

Well, you've definitely convinced me. Please start more threads, we need a football mind like yours on this board.

 

[madinsomniac]

Just a clue to send you in the right direction, it's the last team standing that is the champ. This is pretty easy to determine, as they have to win the last game. Statistics mean nothing. It's obvious that you're rattled due to lack of sleep.

Im not disputing who is the champ, or that stats mean more than victories, im saying that when discussing the best of all time or even in a given year, you have to take into consideration the amount of talent on a team combined with their performance and results. Stats, over the course of a season, refect talent used properly, though they do not nessesarily predict results. Tom Brady is insanely talented, playing in a talented offense, the stats reflect that.

The colts were a better and more talented team than the steelrs that year. The steelers beat them once, the colts beat the steelers once, the steelers got to move on and win, the best team does not always win

 

[Brady_12]

So the best team doesn't win. Geez, is this Carson Palmer in disguise?

Somebody call Goodell, the NFL can cancel the Superbowl. Seriously, why play the games? We should just let madinsomniac crown their a55es.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I pretty much agree with some of your first post, but only because 'the best of all time' is a subjective claim.

As far as the 2005 Colts, they have long been a product of systematic cheating and rule changes. They hold our players on both offense and defense continuously every time we play them. That doesn't make them better than the Steelers (who managed that superbowl victory despite Ben) or us. They are overrated. Stats depend on a lot of things, including the cupcake schedules they played for several years, and the fact that they get a free pass from the officials.

I think we would look a lot better this year if the Dolts/Eagles and Ravens were not allowed to hold us on every play. That makes a HUGE difference. Just watch the tape, it is truly pathetic. I hope your team gets flagged if they try this new 'blueprint', which is simply widespread holding.

But like you say, our QB and WRs are what is special this year. Our Oline is solid but they are still the same guys that have been inconsistent in the past, they are just playing well this year. Our defense has some serious inconsistency. Our running game looks better statistically than it is, and short sighted people simply point to stats rather than admit that we simply would not be able to dominate anybody in this league just by running the ball. It is our insane pass attack which inflates our run stats.

But at the end of the day, it is the overall team that is great, not the individual pieces. It is how we function as a team. I submit to you that no other team in the league could have overcome the intense cheating we faced in three of the last four games. Every single snap our players where held on both sides of the ball, with NO FLAGS until the end of the Ravens game.

So at some point we are getting the job done even more than what the stats say.

I thought we were the best team I had ever seen personally through the first half of the season. I don't really know how to rate the recent games without proper officiating. But I acknowledge the same flaws that you see, I just don't think that any team in history has been perfect, so having flaws doesn't disqualify us from the debate by any means.

I always try to let the season play out before I go overboard with my claims anyway.

 

[Frezo]

Im not disputing who is the champ, or that stats mean more than victories, im saying that when discussing the best of all time or even in a given year, you have to take into consideration the amount of talent on a team combined with their performance and results. Stats, over the course of a season, refect talent used properly, though they do not nessesarily predict results. Tom Brady is insanely talented, playing in a talented offense, the stats reflect that.

The colts were a better and more talented team than the steelrs that year. The steelers beat them once, the colts beat the steelers once, the steelers got to move on and win, the best team does not always win

Is there some kind of a rule book for determining the best ever? You're just making this up to suit your agenda. You're not credible enough to do that.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

You seem to be confusing best team of all time with most talented team ever assembled.

If we set all sorts of statistical records on the way to the first ever, and potentially last for a long, long time undefeated 19-0 Superbowl winning season, we will be the best team of all time.

 

[patsox23]

First of all, I respect the Pats and think they are clearly the best team in the league this year, however even if they go 19-0, one cannot objectively judge their team as the best of all time or even really close to that.

I know saying this on a Pats messageboard will likely not find anyone objective enough to realize it yet, but like the Colt-Rams-Vikings (and yes, the steelers of 04) best of all time arguments that were made by almost the exact same “experts” from the national news services , this one too will prove to be premature

To judge such things, one has to break down all the components of the team separately.

Your Starting Quarterback and Receiver Core rivals any other teams in recent memory, (Brady is already in the top 3 QB’s of all time, but still falls behind Montanna and Graham by a unanimous vote of all those old geezers who actually saw them play, and 3 of your top 4 recievers would be the go to receiver elsewhere, and the fourth would be a solid number 2, So I would grade both of those components as all time caliber positions.
Your TE’s, as well, are underrated, and all in all this is the best passing game since the Vikes and rams went wild in the late90’s/early 00’s

But the run game is not anything special by any means, for instance, if this team had to convert 10 consecutive fourth and 2 conversions, how many of those do you think this team would actually try to run for?
And which is really more likely, the team trying to pass late for more points, simply to “prove” something to the rest of the league, or to keep the running stats compiled when teams are playing the pass so heavily the running backs have some room to run and element of surprise from being exposed when they have to run the ball?
Which brings us to the question, compared to the Bears of 85, any of the great steelers or 49r or even cowboys teams, would this run game be even be acknowledged?

The O line is exceptionally good, But if you were compiling a list of the 30 greatest O lines of all time, do you think anyone would think about this one? Solid yes, One of the best of all time, no.

How about the D? If you had a choice of any of the other “great team’s Defenses to win 1 game with, would you really take this one 1st? how about 2nd, 3rd? would you take the linebacking core over the steelers of 78, the DB’s over the Lott led 49rs?


Look, this team is great, the best so far of this decade for sure, don’t think I don’t see that, I just think that overall they have the fortune of having played a great season with a loaded offense and better than average D combined with some good luck in close games and that a bounce here or there and I could have already been over. The 72 dolphins weren’t the best of all time by any means, but they managed an undefeated season. Though a writer for espn last year tried to object that undefeated = best, I have often heard that sometimes even the best of the best lose one to an inferior team. The colts were better than we were in 05, and we won the super bowl.

You know what's easy? Being awesome when there's no free agency.

 

[Chevy]

So the best team doesn't win. Geez, is this Carson Palmer in disguise?

Somebody call Goodell, the NFL can cancel the Superbowl. Seriously, why play the games? We should just let madinsomniac crown their a55es.

He's using a false argument. A TEAM is more than the sum of its parts. As of right now (and by many projections) the 2007-08 Patriots are on track to be the best TEAM the NFL has ever seen.

So what if the 49'ers had Lott? Or the Steelers the Steel Curtain? Or the Redskins the Hogs?

As a unit, a complete package, the 07-08 Pats stand to be recognized as the best team ever.

The Saints of the early 90's fielded what could arguably be called the best LB corps of all time - Rickey Jackson, Sam Mills, Vaughn Johnson, and Pat Swilling - yet it got them a One-And-Done appearance in the playoffs.

 

[Eugene Chung]

First of all, I respect the Pats and think they are clearly the best team in the league this year, however even if they go 19-0, one cannot objectively judge their team as the best of all time or even really close to that.

Even close? No team has won 19 games in a season. In the record books, any team that wins 19 games in a season is the best of all time.

I know saying this on a Pats messageboard will likely not find anyone objective enough to realize it yet, but like the Colt-Rams-Vikings (and yes, the steelers of 04) best of all time arguments that were made by almost the exact same “experts” from the national news services , this one too will prove to be premature

I agree that saying the Pats are the best team in the history of the NFL after 12 games is premature, but everyone I've heard has said that, if the Pats go 19-0, they'll be the best.

To judge such things, one has to break down all the components of the team separately

Your Starting Quarterback and Receiver Core rivals any other teams in recent memory, (Brady is already in the top 3 QB’s of all time, but still falls behind Montanna and Graham by a unanimous vote of all those old geezers who actually saw them play, and 3 of your top 4 recievers would be the go to receiver elsewhere, and the fourth would be a solid number 2, So I would grade both of those components as all time caliber positions.
Your TE’s, as well, are underrated, and all in all this is the best passing game since the Vikes and rams went wild in the late90’s/early 00’s.

Pretty much agreed. I don't want to say the Pats are already the best, but they're on pace to outscore the Rams and Vikes.

But the run game is not anything special by any means, for instance, if this team had to convert 10 consecutive fourth and 2 conversions, how many of those do you think this team would actually try to run for?

Who gives a crap when the Pats pass it so well? They love the short passes which acts like the run. They have a way better chance passing for a 1st down on 4th and 2 than most, if not all, teams have running in the same situation.

And which is really more likely, the team trying to pass late for more points, simply to “prove” something to the rest of the league, or to keep the running stats compiled when teams are playing the pass so heavily the running backs have some room to run and element of surprise from being exposed when they have to run the ball?

What does this have to do with the best team of all-time thing? Are you trying to say that it's a bad thing for teams to run the ball when the defense is thinking pass? I mean, you do realize that the Pats have the 8th best rushing offense this year.

Which brings us to the question, compared to the Bears of 85, any of the great steelers or 49r or even cowboys teams, would this run game be even be acknowledged?

Did you know that the Bears were ranked 22nd in passing yards in '85? Or that they threw 17 TDs and 16 INTs over the course of the whole regular season? Did you also know that the '85 49ers (15-1) were 19th in passing yards allowed? Or that they were 21st in the NFL in rushing yards per attempt allowed? And how about that vaunted Steelers offense of '78? They had the 13th best passing offense and 14th best rushing offense in the NFL. All of this occurred in seasons when the NFL had less teams. Every dominant team throughout history has had areas of their game which weren't as great as others. Remember that when you look at the Pats offense this weekend which is THE BEST IN FOOTBALL THIS YEAR. Oh, and the defense is 5th in points allowed and 6th in yards allowed.

The O line is exceptionally good, But if you were compiling a list of the 30 greatest O lines of all time, do you think anyone would think about this one? Solid yes, One of the best of all time, no.

Agreed.

How about the D? If you had a choice of any of the other “great team’s Defenses to win 1 game with, would you really take this one 1st? how about 2nd, 3rd? would you take the linebacking core over the steelers of 78, the DB’s over the Lott led 49rs?

No, but would you take the '78 Steelers offense over the '07 Pats offense? No friggin' way. I just proved how mediocre that offense was above. And as for the Niners DBs, are you talking about the '90 Super Bowl winners that were the 13th best passing defense that year? Or are you talking about the Niners DBs from '85 that were 19th in passing yards allowed?

Look, this team is great, the best so far of this decade for sure, don’t think I don’t see that, I just think that overall they have the fortune of having played a great season with a loaded offense and better than average D combined with some good luck in close games and that a bounce here or there and I could have already been over. The 72 dolphins weren’t the best of all time by any means, but they managed an undefeated season. Though a writer for espn last year tried to object that undefeated = best, I have often heard that sometimes even the best of the best lose one to an inferior team. The colts were better than we were in 05, and we won the super bowl.

The Pats have had 3 close games. One was against last year's Super Bowl winner, the two others were against disappointing teams that made the playoffs last year. The other 9 games were blowouts. One of these games can be considered "lucky" because of a coach's decision to call a timeout.

Let me make it known again that I'm not declaring the Pats the best team of all-time. It's way too early for that. What I'm trying to say is you can't base your opinions off of old ghosts. Do some homework. Maybe these amazing teams that you speak so highly of weren't as dominant as you thought they were.

 

[bradmahn]

Regardless of whether or not it is the Patriots, any team that goes 19-0 immediately makes a case for it to be labeled "the best ever." If that team sets scoring records (team & individual) it only further cements its "claims" to that title.

The Bears' passing offense in '85 was pretty unimpressive, does that take anything away from their team accomplishments? Does that remove them from the discussion of GOAT?

 

[sieglo]

He's using a false argument. A TEAM is more than the sum of its parts. As of right now (and by many projections) the 2007-08 Patriots are on track to be the best TEAM the NFL has ever seen.

So what if the 49'ers had Lott? Or the Steelers the Steel Curtain? Or the Redskins the Hogs?

As a unit, a complete package, the 07-08 Pats stand to be recognized as the best team ever.

The Saints of the early 90's fielded what could arguably be called the best LB corps of all time - Rickey Jackson, Sam Mills, Vaughn Johnson, and Pat Swilling - yet it got them a One-And-Done appearance in the playoffs.

Exactly. The operative word here is TEAM. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

And CONSISTENCY is a big part of being great. If you find ways to win on a consistent basis, then you're a better team than one that loses the game that might give them a perfect 16-0 record, or that chokes big time in the 2004 AFCCG.

 

[Ring 6]

Im not disputing who is the champ, or that stats mean more than victories, im saying that when discussing the best of all time or even in a given year, you have to take into consideration the amount of talent on a team combined with their performance and results. Stats, over the course of a season, refect talent used properly, though they do not nessesarily predict results. Tom Brady is insanely talented, playing in a talented offense, the stats reflect that.

The colts were a better and more talented team than the steelrs that year. The steelers beat them once, the colts beat the steelers once, the steelers got to move on and win, the best team does not always win

I must interject that you are 100% wrong.
"The amount of talent on a team". How are you judging that? Are you comparing the best 3 players on a team, the worst 3 players? All 53? What yardstick are you using to decide who is more talented?
The ONLY yardstick of the talent of a team is whether they win or lose. If all of your 'talent' loses to another teams 'talent' you have worse talent. It does not matter if you can run faster, jump higher, etc. It doesnt matter if all 53 players are individually more 'talented'. "Talent" includes the ability to win games. In fact the ability to win games is more important than any characteristic you can list under 'talent'.

The Steelers in 2005 were more talented than the Colts. The TEAM was more talented. I could care less how many players you can name that you are impressed with the 'talent' of, the sum of the parts added up to the Steelers being better than the Colts, because WHEN IT WAS TIME TO PROVE WHO WAS BETTER THE STEELERS WON. That is the only fact that need be discussed.

As far as your long-winded original post, it would appear that you are saying that other offenses who were LESS SUCCESFUL than the Patriots are better, because you like their style better. They ran better, so even though that better running added up to less success, in your book they are better. That is moronic.

 

[Fencer]

Here's what you're forgetting -- clutch play, the extra gear, and so on. It's what made the Pats the best team in the league when on paper they didn't appear to be close to that. Brady was one of the greatest clutch QBs of all time back when he was still nothing special the first 45 minutes of most games. Willie McGinest was a legitimate All-Pro in the clutch and merely pretty good the rest of the time. And so it went.

Clutch play is also what made the Colts and Pats 1-2 in the league last year, in that order, ::sigh:: and in particular ahead of the Chargers.

If the Pats go 19-0 -- and right now they're not even 2/3 of the way there, and the average quality of their future opponents will exceed that of the 12 to date -- it won't be just because they won around half their games by ridiculous blowout margins. It will be because they also pulled out each and every close game they were in.

As for the units and so on:

Yes, this is one of the greatest passing offenses the game has ever seen. Perhaps it is the greatest.

You're right, this is a pretty mediocre running attack. However, while nobody's 100%, the team is pretty good at getting it done on all downs and distances, INCLUDING traditional running ones. So overall it's a great, great offense. Until recently they had scored TDs on half their non-kneeldown drives. Earlier in the season they were scoring more often from inside their 10 than the average team scored in the red zone. It's just ridiculously good.

The offense overall has had some pretty mediocre games. Even in those it usually scores a lot over 20 points. And when in the three close games the Pats have had, the offense poured out the points in the last few drives, no matter what had happened earlier in the game.

The defense overall has had good-not-great results. But it did pretty darned well in the fourth quarters of the three close games.

For a talent count, Samuel is a Pro Bowler if not an All-Pro. Vrabel has been close to that level, a couple of recent blah weeks notwithstanding. Wilfork and Warren are tough to judge, but seem very good players for their positions. Colvin was playing extremely well on the whole pre-injury. Thomas has huge talent, although he hasn't yet rounded into his own. Ditto Seymour, although after 6 games some of us are doubting whether it will happen this season, or whether his injury will plague him through the year. Harrison, Bruschi, and Seau are former major studs, slowed but still smart and dangerous. The rest of the secondary is competent. Green is one of the great defensive subs in the league. All in all, there's a lot of talent there.

STs are quite solid.