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

[Double TE]

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

It scares fans like me sometimes!!! UGH!

LOL

 

[NSPF]

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

Excuse me, but wtf? It doesn't matter if a skill is repeatable?

 

[Ring 6]

Excuse me, but wtf? It doesn't matter if a skill is repeatable?

Why would it? You only have to win once.

 

[glm]

If all the Pats teams played each other, 07 would prob win the most.

 

[NSPF]

Why would it? You only have to win once.

We are judging the overall quality of teams here. We are judging them based on various attributes about them. An unrepeatable skill is not an attribute that we can use to judge them, so if "playing your best when it matters most" isn't a repeatable skill, then we cannot use it to judge a team. Therefore, it matters very much whether or not you believe it is a repeatable skill.

 

[Double TE]

If all the Pats teams played each other, 07 would prob win the most.

Them or the 04 Pats...Dillon was a beast!

 

[Ring 6]

We are judging the overall quality of teams here. We are judging them based on various attributes about them. An unrepeatable skill is not an attribute that we can use to judge them, so if "playing your best when it matters most" isn't a repeatable skill, then we cannot use it to judge a team. Therefore, it matters very much whether or not you believe it is a repeatable skill.

I disagree. Teams are judged by achievement not by what you think they were supposed to achieve. The fact that there is no opportunity to repeat winning a clutch game means that this ficticious repeatability you are using to turn an argument achievement into one about feelings and opinions is exactly why it is so important.
Success is determined by how you perform under pressure at the most key moment when you have one chance. To try to turn achievement into what the odds were that they would achieve is reducing this to the fanstasy football level.

 

[NSPF]

I disagree. Teams are judged by achievement not by what you think they were supposed to achieve. The fact that there is no opportunity to repeat winning a clutch game means that this ficticious repeatability you are using to turn an argument achievement into one about feelings and opinions is exactly why it is so important.
Success is determined by how you perform under pressure at the most key moment when you have one chance. To try to turn achievement into what the odds were that they would achieve is reducing this to the fanstasy football level.

If you aren't comparing the teams based on their attributes, then you aren't comparing them. If you think winning a championship indicates that a team has certain attributes that make it better, then you can make that argument, and I am fine with that. However, you then have to show that winning a championship does in fact indicate these qualities, or else your argument isn't complete. I'm not saying for sure that you are necessarily wrong, but you haven't completed your argument.

Also note, we aren't judging the success of teams, we are judging the quality.

 

[Ring 6]

If you aren't comparing the teams based on their attributes, then you aren't comparing them.

So your arrogant response is if I don't accept your rules, my point is useless? Nice.

If you think winning a championship indicates that a team has certain attributes that make it better, then you can make that argument, and I am fine with that. However, you then have to show that winning a championship does in fact indicate these qualities, or else your argument isn't complete.

My argument is completed by the team accomplishing their goal in their one and only opportunity.
It is ridiculous to judge a team on whether YOU THINK they would, could, should or deserve to achieve something they had once chance to do and did.

I'm not saying for sure that you are necessarily wrong, but you haven't completed your argument.

I certainly have.

Also note, we aren't judging the success of teams, we are judging the quality.

The quality of a team is defined by it's success.

 

[NSPF]

So your arrogant response is if I don't accept your rules, my point is useless? Nice.


My argument is completed by the team accomplishing their goal in their one and only opportunity.
It is ridiculous to judge a team on whether YOU THINK they would, could, should or deserve to achieve something they had once chance to do and did.


I certainly have.


The quality of a team is defined by it's success.

They aren't my rules. You cannot meaningfully compare things based on factors that are not inherent to that thing. Do you agree with this, and if not, why do you not agree with this? This isn't a football question, so please answer in more general terms.

 

[Ring 6]

They aren't my rules. You cannot meaningfully compare things based on factors that are not inherent to that thing. Do you agree with this, and if not, why do you not agree with this? This isn't a football question, so please answer in more general terms.

Of course they are your rules.
I am giving my parameters that I judge teams by.
I judge them by achievement and do not replace achievement with my guess at how many times out of 10 they would have achieved.
You seem to think that succeeding is not inherent to quality. I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous.
One more time. Football teams have a goal of winning the SB. Achieving or not achieving a goal, the actual results you achieve, are the only meaningful measurement of quality.
Results are what matters. Putting something else ahead of results implies that the goal and purpose of a team is something other than results, and that is silly, IMHO.

 

[RayClay]

Not yet...

 

[NSPF]

Of course they are your rules.
I am giving my parameters that I judge teams by.
I judge them by achievement and do not replace achievement with my guess at how many times out of 10 they would have achieved.
You seem to think that succeeding is not inherent to quality. I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous.
One more time. Football teams have a goal of winning the SB. Achieving or not achieving a goal, the actual results you achieve, are the only meaningful measurement of quality.
Results are what matters. Putting something else ahead of results implies that the goal and purpose of a team is something other than results, and that is silly, IMHO.

Succeeding is not inherent to quality. I can hit a 3-point shot. That doesn't mean that if I do it once, and an NBA player immediately after misses, that I am a better 3-point shooter. Just because I succeeded at my goal, and he didn't, does that mean I'm better? And please do not claim this is a bad analogy, you made a general statement, not a football statement, so it has to apply to ALL cases, OR you have to prove that football is an exception.

 

[brdmaverick]

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

Easy, I think the poster was looking at it as........

What if it was possible for these teams to play against each other. Which team would win?

 

[RayClay]

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.

Anthony Pleasant started 16 games on that line and Brandon Mitchell played a lot too.

 

[Ring 6]

Succeeding is not inherent to quality. I can hit a 3-point shot. That doesn't mean that if I do it once, and an NBA player immediately after misses, that I am a better 3-point shooter.

That is a ridiculous analogy. Teams don't win SBs by one lucky event in a vaccuum.

Just because I succeeded at my goal, and he didn't, does that mean I'm better? And please do not claim this is a bad analogy, you made a general statement, not a football statement, so it has to apply to ALL cases, OR you have to prove that football is an exception.

It is a terrible analogy.
You are trying to compare one shot as the definition of quality to an entire football season and post season.
If you played 16 games plus 3 playoff games and your only job was to shoot 3 point baskets and you made a higher percentage of them than anyone, then THAT would mean you are the best.
Your analogy is akin to saying the Colts proved they were the best team in the NFL on the play they scored a TD.

The bottom line is this:

I judge the quality of a team by what they achieve. Plain and simple.

Your argument seems to be that other things are more important than results. I disagree.

 

[Ring 6]

Easy, I think the poster was looking at it as........

What if it was possible for these teams to play against each other. Which team would win?

Isn't that just a subjective argument that is impossible to agree upon?

Why wouldn't the best team be defined by the results they achieved? When the results are equal, then circumstantial factors break the tie, or attempt to.
I'm not sure how any other approach really makes sense, given that the only reason a team plays is to win games, and ultimately the SB.

 

[Ring 6]

Anthony Pleasant started 16 games on that line and Brandon Mitchell played a lot too.

Yes that D has some weak players on it.
Pleasant was the 5th DL.
Mitchell was a season long starter.
Otis Smith was a starter.
Tebucky Jones was a starter.
Ted Johnson was a part time starter and a terrible player at the time.
The depth was shaky as well across the board. Matt Stevens, Terrence Shaw, Antwan Harris, Johnson, Pleasant among others were key reserves.

Players such as Seymour, Bruschi and Vrabel were still young versions below their peak.

That defense was not overly talented, but played incredibly well as a team, going 9 straight games (IIRC) to end the season allowing 17 points or less.

 

[NSPF]

That is a ridiculous analogy. Teams don't win SBs by one lucky event in a vaccuum.



It is a terrible analogy.
You are trying to compare one shot as the definition of quality to an entire football season and post season.
If you played 16 games plus 3 playoff games and your only job was to shoot 3 point baskets and you made a higher percentage of them than anyone, then THAT would mean you are the best.
Your analogy is akin to saying the Colts proved they were the best team in the NFL on the play they scored a TD.

The bottom line is this:

I judge the quality of a team by what they achieve. Plain and simple.

Your argument seems to be that other things are more important than results. I disagree.

What I am saying - "If there are a finite number of games, then the better team is not guaranteed to win."

What you are saying - "If the number of games exceeds a certain limit, then the better team is guaranteed to win."

If your statement is true, then how did you decide on what that limit should be? Is 3 or 4 games really enough to say?

 

[Ring 6]

What I am saying - "If there are a finite number of games, then the better team is not guaranteed to win."

I disagree because the defintion of better is achieving those wins.
If the purpose of playing is winning, and you only get one chance, how can the best team not be the one that won?

What you are saying - "If the number of games exceeds a certain limit, then the better team is guaranteed to win."

When did I say that? You made that up, and attributed it to me, which is the lame last resort of a losing argument.

All 32 teams set out to do one thing, win the SB. Therefore the definition of the better team is the one that achieves that.
I will ask again, what is the team that lost better at?

If your statement is true, then how did you decide on what that limit should be? Is 3 or 4 games really enough to say?

YOU made up that statement that doesn't even resemble what I am saying.

One more time. Results can not be replaced by someone saying they think they results don't represent what they thought the results would be.