Best of all time debate

[Patsfanin Philly]

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?

quote]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/chi1985.htm

If you are going to take part of the equation,. let's look at the other half. The '85 Bears passing game was pathetic, 22nd in the league

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/chi1985.htm
. The Pats running game which is the the other half of this equation is ranked 8th in the league

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1

I would take a balanced attacked #1 passing/#8 running versus the #1/#22.

 

[PatriotsReign]

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 are way wrong in your analysis profile. All that is required to prove a team is the best ever is to dominate the competition by the widest margin combined with the teams record...END OF STORY.

Since we know it's impossible to compare players of different era's, there's no sense in even attempting that. That being said, even if a team had NO running or passing game and still dominated their competition (i.e. the league) better than any other team in history, then the ARE THE BEST EVER.

Quality of various positions is totally irrelevant to the analysis. How on earth can you argue with that?

 

[fair catch fryar]

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.

I thought you were one of those guys that claimed "clutch" doesn't exist and is only a product of sabre-mathematics?

 

[Ice Cold Bruschi]

your argument is flawed, you're saying that its not enough that we have what is most likely going to be the greatest offense of all time, the fact that there were better defenses in the past means that this isn't the best team of all time? The key word is TEAM as a team if we go 19-0 and there is no doubt in my mind that the 07 pats will be the best team of all time and the 1 extra win will make us better than the 85 bears and 89 49'ers

 

[scout]

Did you fail to mention who you thought was the best? Seemed like you took bits and pieces of certain teams and compared them to the current Patriots. Do you know Mike Ditka's Bears, who many considered the greatest defensive team, stated that he didn't think they could stop the Patriot's offense. Good thing you didn't claim the Dolphins as the superb team, nine passes in the Super Bowl. Do you think Bradshaw/Swan/Stallworth and company are a better cast then the Pats combo. Maybe its the Colts offense? In 2005 they played 8 home games in a dome, 1 away games in a dome, and 4 away games in sunny climates, the latest away game outside was Dec 4th. Now, how do you think Brady and company would do in those circumstances compared to playing in windy Baltimore, or balmy New England? Surely, you wouldn't say weather conditions have no impact on scoring? They do not have the greatest defense, but a pretty good one, combined with the greatest offensive unit of any 'team', they will be the greatest if they end the season 19-0. If you disagree, please enter the team in which is better.

 

[Mainefan]

As one of those old geezers who often saw Graham play (Otto Graham, QB Cleveland Browns,m late 40s-early50s), I can say with some confidence that Brady is better. It's not that he is a better passer--Graham was remarkable. I once saw Graham complete a pass to a receiver who never looked back at him, but merely extended his arms forward and the ball fell into his hands.

But Brady is a smarter, more complete player, and his insistence on winning is unmatched. If we were down 7 points or less with two minutes to play, I would--I have--felt confident that we would win. I've never known another quarterback who can do that, time and time and time again.

 

[aluminum seats]

I think that comparing teams in any sport from different eras is tricky, but particularly so with football. The players today are just SO big and fast, and there is such specialization in how they're used, that the best modern teams tend to have the edge over, say, the Steelers in the 70's.

Within more modern teams, it's going to be tough to argue against the Pats if they finish 19-0, because that's so definitive. Clearly, the TEAM offense appears hard to challenge. I think you could probably argue the Pats team defense from 2003-2004 was better, but that's hardly a lock.

 

[TIMEsteelersfan]

Well... they're not the best of all time, yet. They will deserve serious consideration when the season is over IF they go 19-0. However, just because you go undefeated doesn't necessarily make you the best of all time. The Dolphins were 17-0 and if you ask 100 people who the best team of all time was I'll bet less than 10 of them say the Dolphins. IF the Pats go undefeated I may consider them the best, just because of the level of competition that's in the NFL now.

The parody is much, much greater than it was in the 70's and 80's, and the competition is just immense as a result. Free agency leveled the playing field starting in 1992, and the difference between good teams and bad teams isn't as big as it used to be. Any team that can run the table in today's NFL is probably the best of all time, especially having to go through some very good teams(Colts, Jags, Steelers, Cowboys, Packers) IF they're able to pull it off it will be nothing short of miraculous... very possibly the best of all time.

The key word here is "IF".

 

[ClevTrev]

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

Ah, my bad. Sometimes I'm just not reading these posts carefully enough. I just realized:

You're a Colts fan posing as a Steelers fan!!!

That's a good method of getting props in for your real team by pretending to be an objective fan of another. Hah! No self-respecting Steelers fan would ever make that statement. Nice try, bud.

 

[bradmahn]

Well... they're not the best of all time, yet. They will deserve serious consideration when the season is over IF they go 19-0. However, just because you go undefeated doesn't necessarily make you the best of all time. The Dolphins were 17-0 and if you ask 100 people who the best team of all time was I'll bet less than 10 of them say the Dolphins. IF the Pats go undefeated I may consider them the best, just because of the level of competition that's in the NFL now.

The parody is much, much greater than it was in the 70's and 80's, and the competition is just immense as a result. Free agency leveled the playing field starting in 1992, and the difference between good teams and bad teams isn't as big as it used to be. Any team that can run the table in today's NFL is probably the best of all time, especially having to go through some very good teams(Colts, Jags, Steelers, Cowboys, Packers) IF they're able to pull it off it will be nothing short of miraculous... very possibly the best of all time.

The key word here is "IF".

That is a very fair take on the matter. Kudos to you for not being a douche.

 

[makewayhomer]

anybody won doesn't understand that the best team doesn't always in...well, they don't understand much.

on any given Sunday, weird things happen, and sometimes an inferior team beats a better team.

in 1998 the Broncos were 13-0. then they lost to the Giants, who ended up 7-7. the Broncos went on to win the Super Bowl.

were the Giants in 1998 better than the Broncos? if you think so, you're insane. they just happened to win that day. if those 2 teams played each other 10 times, the Giants probably win once, but that 1 time happened that Sunday. that's variance.

people will probably reply with "they were better that day" which is fine, but ultimately a dumb way to look at it. the mark of a team is how good they are over the long run, and the Broncos were way better than the Giants.

 

[makewayhomer]

with regard to the "best team ever" stuff you really need to wait until the end of the season.

through 12 weeks, they are the best team ever, and this is backed up by objective and subjective evidence. we'll see what happens over the next couple months

 

[fair catch fryar]

anybody won doesn't understand that the best team doesn't always in...well, they don't understand much.

on any given Sunday, weird things happen, and sometimes an inferior team beats a better team.

in 1998 the Broncos were 13-0. then they lost to the Giants, who ended up 7-7. the Broncos went on to win the Super Bowl.

were the Giants in 1998 better than the Broncos? if you think so, you're insane. they just happened to win that day. if those 2 teams played each other 10 times, the Giants probably win once, but that 1 time happened that Sunday. that's variance.

people will probably reply with "they were better that day" which is fine, but ultimately a dumb way to look at it. the mark of a team is how good they are over the long run, and the Broncos were way better than the Giants.

Yawwn. Here we go, make room for "makewayhomer!"

 

[Seacoast Fan]

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

The only "source" I trust less than a bunch of sports writers in a bar, is Dr. Z in a mag.
Now, if you can get Mercury Morris to agree with Dr. Z on this one, you will have hit the Trifecta.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

Well... they're not the best of all time, yet. They will deserve serious consideration when the season is over IF they go 19-0. However, just because you go undefeated doesn't necessarily make you the best of all time. The Dolphins were 17-0 and if you ask 100 people who the best team of all time was I'll bet less than 10 of them say the Dolphins. IF the Pats go undefeated I may consider them the best, just because of the level of competition that's in the NFL now.

The parody is much, much greater than it was in the 70's and 80's, and the competition is just immense as a result. Free agency leveled the playing field starting in 1992, and the difference between good teams and bad teams isn't as big as it used to be. Any team that can run the table in today's NFL is probably the best of all time, especially having to go through some very good teams(Colts, Jags, Steelers, Cowboys, Packers) IF they're able to pull it off it will be nothing short of miraculous... very possibly the best of all time.

The key word here is "IF".

Hey, leave the Jets and the Fins out of this....

 

[godef]

madinsomniac][/b]
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"?

The Colts were actually better than us in '05 (I'm sure you actually mean the '04 season)?!? How on earth did you figure that? Great offense, sucky defense? They were not.

The '85 Bears had a great defense but a nothing-special offense. The '07 Pats have a great offense and a reasonably decent defense. So how do you weight this? With the point differential. The Patiotrs threaten to break the PD record (the average-per-game thereof), which means they would technically have had the greatest combined offense/defense in NFL history.

Remember, this is a team game. They were getting out-horsed by Baltimore for good stretches in the last game, but managed to pull it together as a team to win the game.

And win they did. When most other great teams have had their seasonal lulls, that's where they end up losing one or two games but still finishing 13-3, 14-2 or 15-1. But the Pats have been still winning during their lull. To me, at this point of the season, they have the greatest team ever.

 

[makewayhomer]

The Colts were actually better than us in '05 (I'm sure you actually mean the '04 season)?!? How on earth did you figure that? Great offense, sucky defense? They were not.

The '85 Bears had a great defense but a nothing-special offense. The '07 Pats have a great offense and a reasonably decent defense. So how do you weight this? With the point differential. The Patiotrs threaten to break the PD record (the average-per-game thereof), which means they would technically have had the greatest combined offense/defense in NFL history.

Remember, this is a team game. They were getting out-horsed by Baltimore for good stretches in the last game, but managed to pull it together as a team to win the game.

And win they did. When most other great teams have their seasonal lulls, that's were they end up losing one or two games and finishing 14-2 and 15-1. But the Pats have been still winning during their lulls. To me, at this point of the season, they hare the greatest team ever.

eh, the Ravens played better than we did on Monday. if Rex Ryan doesn't call that dumb TO, we lose.

this is why Win/Loss record isn't always the best predictor of success going forward. sometimes a bad team team can luckily win a bunch of games - ie Detroit who started out 6-2 - but most people could tell you that they're weren't nearly as good as 6-2 teams usually are. the record is now a better reflection of their true quality, but this wasn't true a month ago.

it's been proven in baseball than Run Differential is a better predictor of future success than current W/L record. in football it's probably similar.

wrt to this conversation, it's why most people think the 85 Bears and 89 Niners are better than the 72 Dolphins

 

[alamo]

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.

It's completely premature right now, we don't know the final record and the final offensive and defensive rankings. But to say that if we go 19-0 you can't objectively judge we're "even really close" to the best of all time makes no sense at all. 19-0 is a feat that has never been achieved and deserves automatic inclusion in the "best of all time" discussion.

 

[scout]

eh, the Ravens played better than we did on Monday. if Rex Ryan doesn't call that dumb TO, we lose.

this is why Win/Loss record isn't always the best predictor of success going forward. sometimes a bad team team can luckily win a bunch of games - ie Detroit who started out 6-2 - but most people could tell you that they're weren't nearly as good as 6-2 teams usually are. the record is now a better reflection of their true quality, but this wasn't true a month ago.

it's been proven in baseball than Run Differential is a better predictor of future success than current W/L record. in football it's probably similar.

wrt to this conversation, it's why most people think the 85 Bears and 89 Niners are better than the 72 Dolphins

You don't think that the other options (teams) who are judged as best ever didn't have close calls? Gee, maybe if Franco Harris doesn't scoop that ball the Steelers do not go on a run. 19-0 will be THE starting point for proclaiming best ever. Then take into accounts the differentials, which are already pretty impressive.

 

[makewayhomer]

You don't think that the other options (teams) who are judged as best ever didn't have close calls?

I don't think you understood me. not only did they have close calls (go look at the 89 Niners) but they lost games.