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

[brdmaverick]

If there are no upsets and results alone define which team is better, then how does a hockey, basketball, or baseball series go to seven games? The better team should win four straight games, right?

 

[brdmaverick]

I think even the 2010 Seahawks would admit that the 2010 Saints were the better team, but every dog has his day.

 

[Ring 6]

If there are no upsets and results alone define which team is better, then how does a hockey, basketball, or baseball series go to seven games? The better team should win four straight games, right?

No. The better team is the one that achieves the goal of winning the series.
I don't get how this is so difficult to understand.
The team exists for a signular reason. How can something other than which achieve that goal determine who was better.
Again, better at what? Whatever it is pales in comparison to winning a championship.

 

[Ring 6]

I think even the 2010 Seahawks would admit that the 2010 Saints were the better team, but every dog has his day.

The 2010 Seahawks won the Super Bowl?

 

[coolguy]

No. The better team is the one that achieves the goal of winning the series.
I don't get how this is so difficult to understand.
The team exists for a signular reason. How can something other than which achieve that goal determine who was better.
Again, better at what? Whatever it is pales in comparison to winning a championship.

That's not true in football. So many things come into play in the nfl
Injuries
Weather
penalties
Personal events
Could all keep the better team from winning a game.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Some years there are no really good teams and somebody has to be the best of a mediocre bunch.

Ask Colts fans whether their 2006 championship-winning team was the "best" of all the teams they had in the decade. The answer you will get in a resounding "NO" and it is correct. They won a title over a Patriots team sick with the flu and with their lowest level of talent at the skill positions of the decade, and then faced the mighty Rex Grossman in the Super Bowl. That year was a down year overall for the top of the league, IMO.

Of course it all gets into subjective analysis when we are talking about comparing teams from different years, but that is what this thread is all about- opinion. How can you argue that one Super Bowl champion was better than another? You may use stats, your eyeballs, or whatever but in the end they can't face each other so it's just an opinion.

FWIW I think the 2007 teams was more talented, tougher to match up against, and overall tougher to defeat than a great many Super Bowl champions, including our own 2001 champions. "Better" by most definitions, Not a better season, or a better result, but a better collection of players, coaches, and strategy. Blasphemy? Maybe. If somebody in 2001 had made a helmet catch against us at the exactly wrong time, or the equivalent of Asante had dropped an INT at the wrong time, it might not have worked out for us that year. Good luck happens. Bad luck happens. Fluky plays happen. Bad calls happen. Sometimes each of these is aided by skill, e.g. "making your own luck" but other times they just fall into your lap.

 

[coolguy]

Some years there are no really good teams and somebody has to be the best of a mediocre bunch.

Ask Colts fans whether their 2006 championship-winning team was the "best" of all the teams they had in the decade. The answer you will get in a resounding "NO" and it is correct. They won a title over a Patriots team sick with the flu and with their lowest level of talent at the skill positions of the decade, and then faced the mighty Rex Grossman in the Super Bowl. That year was a down year overall for the top of the league, IMO.

Of course it all gets into subjective analysis when we are talking about comparing teams from different years, but that is what this thread is all about- opinion. How can you argue that one Super Bowl champion was better than another? You may use stats, your eyeballs, or whatever but in the end they can't face each other so it's just an opinion.

FWIW I think the 2007 teams was more talented, tougher to match up against, and overall tougher to defeat than a great many Super Bowl champions, including our own 2001 champions. "Better" by most definitions, Not a better season, or a better result, but a better collection of players, coaches, and strategy. Blasphemy? Maybe. If somebody in 2001 had made a helmet catch against us at the exactly wrong time, or the equivalent of Asante had dropped an INT at the wrong time, it might not have worked out for us that year. Good luck happens. Bad luck happens. Fluky plays happen. Bad calls happen. Sometimes each of these is aided by skill, e.g. "making your own luck" but other times they just fall into your lap.

GTFO here ...The 2004 patriots would destroy the 2007 patriots.
The 2004 patriots is the best defense the pats have ever had in terms of star power and youth.

 

[Ring 6]

That's not true in football. So many things come into play in the nfl
Injuries
Weather
penalties
Personal events
Could all keep the better team from winning a game.

You cannot replace achieving with didn't achieve but I can explain why.
The purpose of a team is to win a championship. You seem to be arguing that your idea of why a team SHOULD win is a better gauge of who is the best team than what actually happened on the field in real life.

 

[Yehoodi]

No. The better team is the one that achieves the goal of winning the series. I don't get how this is so difficult to understand.
The team exists for a signular reason. How can something other than which achieve that goal determine who was better.
Again, better at what? Whatever it is pales in comparison to winning a championship.

Andy, there is a difference between who do you think is the better team outright and who played better/had more breaks to win on a particular day . . . the former may not always be clear and is subject to argument and the latter is much more clear . . . most would not argue that the 2007 Pats were the best team in football . . .but not many would then argue then that the 2001 pats were the best team in 2001 . . .

. . .we must remember had Woodsen gotten to Brady merely 0.2 seconds later, TB has both hands on the ball and Walt Colemen says "after reviewing the play the ruling on the fields stands" Oakland takes 3 knees and wins that divisional game and 2001 pats are just a bunch of lovable losers . . . not saying that our trophy has an asterisk, but i do recognize that sometimes one wins based on outright undisputed skill and some win on luck . . . and somtimes luck goes the other way, for example 2006 AFCCG and that game that shall not be mentioned

 

[coolguy]

You cannot replace achieving with didn't achieve but I can explain why.
The purpose of a team is to win a championship. You seem to be arguing that your idea of why a team SHOULD win is a better gauge of who is the best team than what actually happened on the field in real life.

So when a road team plays at certain* teams stadiums and has to deal with artificial crowd noise and referees calling B.S penalties that favor the home team, that home team is better right?

And it's been proven in the past that off the field tragedies can affect play on the field. Not everyone can throw 7 touchdown after losing a loved one like bret favre.

 

[Yehoodi]

You cannot replace achieving with didn't achieve but I can explain why.
The purpose of a team is to win a championship. You seem to be arguing that your idea of why a team SHOULD win is a better gauge of who is the best team than what actually happened on the field in real life.

so Andy you would agree with me that since the 2-14 Rams beat the 13-3 Saints this year that the Rams were the better team this year than the Saints, correct??

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

GTFO here ...The 2004 patriots would destroy the 2007 patriots.
The 2004 patriots is the best defense the pats have ever had in terms of star power and youth.

Ummm.... I agree completely.

I said the 2007 team was better than the 2001 team

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, there is a difference between who do you think is the better team outright and who played better/had more breaks to win on a particular day

I am not talking about a particular day, I am talking about the lifetime of a team, one year.
Of course there is a difference between who you think is better and who actually proved to be. That is my point.

. . . the former may not always be clear and is subject to argument and the latter is much more clear . . . most would not argue that the 2007 Pats were the best team in football

They were not. The singular goal of every team is to win the SB. Doing a whole bunch of good things while failing to achieve your goal is not better than achieving your goal.

. . .but not many would then argue then that the 2001 pats were the best team in 2001 . . .

Yes, they were

. . .we must remember had Woodsen gotten to Brady merely 0.2 seconds later, TB has both hands on the ball and Walt Colemen says "after reviewing the play the ruling on the fields stands" Oakland takes 3 knees and wins that divisional game and 2001 pats are just a bunch of lovable losers . . . not saying that our trophy has an asterisk, but i do recognize that sometimes one wins based on outright undisputed skill and some win on luck . . . and somtimes luck goes the other way, for example 2006 AFCCG and that game that shall not be mentioned

Not if they called the roughing the passer that also occured.
So, then who was the best team in 2001? And what did they do that made them better than the one team that achieved the singular goal all 32 shared?
Are we really calling a team better becuase if things happened they would have accomplished something, taking credit away from the team that did?
That is the fantasy football-ization of the NFL. Competition means nothing, statistics and opinions are more important.

 

[Ring 6]

so Andy you would agree with me that since the 2-14 Rams beat the 13-3 Saints this year that the Rams were the better team this year than the Saints, correct??

Where did I say anything like that? Do you actually read what I am posting or are you making up an argument you would like to argue against?

 

[Ring 6]

So when a road team plays at certain* teams stadiums and has to deal with artificial crowd noise and referees calling B.S penalties that favor the home team, that home team is better right?

And it's been proven in the past that off the field tragedies can affect play on the field. Not everyone can throw 7 touchdown after losing a loved one like bret favre.

So the best team is determined by an argument over who has the best excuses?

What do you think best team means?
Does it not mean the team most likely to achieve the singular goal of winning a Championship?

 

[Mogamedogz]

They are better on offense and worse on defense. What that is going to translate into, we'll find out on Sunday, and hopefully after that, on Superbowl Sunday.

Exactly.

 

[deroc5050]

With the pats 2007 schedule and the way they almost ran the table I have a hard time not saying they were the best Patriot team. I know most people say 2004 and 2004 was great. I am not sure it was better than 2007. But we shall never know.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

What do you think best team means?

I get it that you think it means the team that had the most successful season, since you have repeated it a zillion times.

Some of us consider other factors: talent, mental toughness, coaching, versatility, depth and that sometimes an outside factor takes away a championship.

In my mind if the 2007 Patriots lined up against the 2001 Patriots, the 2007 Patriots would likely win.

I am not saying they had a better season, accomplished more, met their goals, reached their full potential, or anything else. Just that their level of talent, intelligence, coaching, execution, and depth would be really tough for the 2001 team to overcome.

But feel free to suggest that maybe Asante Samuel drops an INT, the #5 WR on the 2001 team makes a helmet catch after Richard Seymour gets tackled by the throat without a holding call, etc.

Weird stuff can happen.

Heck, the Giants were the worse matchup, and if they had not pulled out some close games in the NFC playoffs, we have another ring IMO. If that team faced the 2006 Bears in the Super Bowl (Colts dumb luck from 2006) then we finish 19-0 by winning 35-7.

 

[Ring 6]

I get it that you think it means the team that had the most successful season, since you have repeated it a zillion times.

Actually I have said that zero times. I have said every team has the same goal and the one that achieves it is therefore best.

Some of us consider other factors: talent, mental toughness, coaching, versatility, depth and that sometimes an outside factor takes away a championship.

I am not discounting those factors at all. What I am doing is not taking the arrogant approach that I can look at those factors and come up with a better answer than what actually happened on the field in real life.

In my mind if the 2007 Patriots lined up against the 2001 Patriots, the 2007 Patriots would likely win.

That hypothetical estimation does not make them a better team.
Each team had one shot at achieving its goal. One did, one did not. The 2007 team failed at the one thing that is substantially more important than all of the other reasons you give to put forth an opinion that conflicts with what happened on the field in real life.

I am not saying they had a better season, accomplished more, met their goals, reached their full potential, or anything else. Just that their level of talent, intelligence, coaching, execution, and depth would be really tough for the 2001 team to overcome.

That is not close to the definition of better team to me.
A team has one season to achieve. That is its lifespan. How you would hypothetically do against another team at another time has nothing to do with what that team was and did.

But feel free to suggest that maybe Asante Samuel drops an INT, the #5 WR on the 2001 team makes a helmet catch after Richard Seymour gets tackled by the throat without a holding call, etc.

Hypothetical maybes do not take the place of what really happened.

Weird stuff can happen.

Heck, the Giants were the worse matchup, and if they had not pulled out some close games in the NFC playoffs, we have another ring IMO.

I would not attempt to credit the 2007 team with a ring that it proved it did not deserve, just as I would not discredit the 2001 team by belttiling the ring they won and deserved.
Perhaps we are just on different sides here. I am concerned with what actually happened on the football field, and you appear to think your opinion of would have happened in a hypothetical situation is more important. If thats the case, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

If that team faced the 2006 Bears in the Super Bowl (Colts dumb luck from 2006) then we finish 19-0 by winning 35-7.

You do not know that, and that doesn't matter. What the 2007 team was faced with was showing up for that SB and beating whoever showed up. It failed. I find it lame to try to make them out to be something they were not. They were not Champions. You only get one chance in the real world.

 

[Yehoodi]

Where did I say anything like that? Do you actually read what I am posting or are you making up an argument you would like to argue against?

Andy, well then what is your standard for deciding who is the best team in the sport? you are all over the place . . . on one hand you claim the teams that wins the most head to head competitions in Jan and Feb is the best team, thereby stating (without realizing it) that the best by definition is the team the wins the head to head competition and not best on an overall year achievement . . . but then on the other hand (to avoid the flaw in your head to head argument) you use the overall year as the standard thereby rendering the saints better that the rams eventho the rams, based on your former logic (head to head, it matters what happens on Sunday) the one that would put the rams better than the Saints . ..

Andy you can not have your cake and eat it too . .. one needs to stick to a standard and go with it . . . look, i understand your point about only one team can acheive its goal, and for the most part all teams aspired to that goal (athlo i would argue some of the lower teams or teams in transitions might have lower goals for an instant year). . .

but when one is trying to argue who is the best team for a given year (and notice I am not saying SB winner but the best team in a given year) it is best on well . . . . who is the best team for the given year . . . and not who got hot in Jan/Feb . . . most rational footballs who have followed the sport this year who not argue that Denver or the Gmen were the best team in 2011 football, the fact that one of them might, or could have in Denver case, win the SB does no retoractively change ones opinion of who is the best in as of Jan. 19, 2011 . . .plain and simple . . .

So who achieves one goals and who is the best team is not always going to be on in the same, the former is easy to decide and the later is subject to debate . . . and sometimes the team that achieves is goal gets lucky, 2001 pats and unluck, the 2007 pats, and sometimes that same teams simply just takes it and does so by beating all comers handly, like the 2004 pats . . .

and yes i do agree with you that woodsen had a blow to the head (albeit he was going for the ball and missed as TB arms past his own helmet and woodson followed thru and hit the helmet first then the arm) and it should of been calls for all is kind of fair, but there are times when teams are lucky . . .it is part of the sport true, but when sits back and reflects and review who is the best it is not always the won that wins certain head to head games . ..

i for one can make a clear distinction between who is the best team in the sport and who won the championshipn, sometimes they are undisputedly one in the same, and sometimes they are not so undisputedly the same, and sometimes there is a real, and valid, argument that the two are different . . .