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

[Ring 6]

Andy, well then what is your standard for deciding who is the best team in the sport?

The one that wins the Championship.

you are all over the place . . .

No I have been unwaveringly consistent.

on one hand you claim the teams that wins the most head to head competitions in Jan and Feb is the best team,

Where did I say anything resembling that?
I have said throughout the thread that the one team that achieves the singular goal shared by all 32 teams 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 . . .

No that is not what I said at all.

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 . ..

You can't really be having this much trouble comprehending can you?
All 32 teams share 1 goal. The only reasonable definition of the best team is the one that achieves that goal. That is my point.
I have said nothing about individual games, or comparing 7-9 teams that beat 10-6 teams or anything such as that.

Andy you can not have your cake and eat it too . ..[ one needs to stick to a standard and go with it . . .

I have done exactly that. Your poor comprehension of what I have very clearly written does not change that.
It seems you are ignoring my posts and creating an argument you would like to argue against and assigning it to me. I'm not sure what that accomplishes.

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 . . .

What is your definition of best? Mine is that 32 teams compete for one goal. It is clear which one achieves it.
What could possibly make a different team better?

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 . . .

It proves their opinion was wrong.
This is what is silly. You are arguing that who you think is going to win the SB is a better argument of who is a better team that who actually goes out on the field and does so.
That is crazy. Unfortunately if your skills in judging all of the variables that go into determining who is the best team are poor and you are wrong, that doesn't mean the wrong team won, it means you were wrong about who was the best team. That is really just simple fact.

So who achieves one goals and who is the best team is not always going to be on in the same,

I disagree 100% because the definition of being the best is achieving the goal.

the former is easy to decide and the later is subject to debate . . .

A debate is pointless when the result is determined.

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 . . .

Again, you are now stating that your assessment of who is better is flawless and who wins on the field is flaw. That is ridiculous.

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 . ..

The best team combines everything that goes into playing football and ends up with a Championship.
No one has a ring because you think they were the best.

i for one can make a clear distinction between who is the best team in the sport and who won the championshipn,

If all 32 teams are playing for 1 goal, what criteria other than achieving that is a better yardstick of best?
If the Patriots in 2001 were unlucky and undeserving, as you say, who was the best team, and what did they do that was better than winning a SB?

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 . . .

They are always undisputed, because the best team is determined on the field.

 

[coolguy]

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?

The superbowl is not about whose the best, it's about which team is the "hottest" and healthiest. Teams with momentum are often the ones that end up winning the superbowl. This can happen in a best of 7 series because that hot team usually flames out (which explains why so many nba/mlb teams win the 1st game and lose the rest).

 

[Ring 6]

The superbowl is not about whose the best, it's about which team is the "hottest" and healthiest. Teams with momentum are often the ones that end up winning the superbowl. This can happen in a best of 7 series because that hot team usually flames out (which explains why so many nba/mlb teams win the 1st game and lose the rest).

Of course it is about who is best.
What are you using as the reason to choose the best if it isn't who earns the one goal all teams share?
Since the team exists for one season, and has one goal, then whatever you think caused them to win is a characteristic of being the best.
Getting hot and playing your best when the games matter the most is a much more compelling argument for who is best than 'coolguy thinks that team is better because of some statistic'

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Andy, by your logic if one were to debate who were the best teams in NFL history in the Super Bowl era, the only conclusion would be that it is a 45 team tie. All 45 Super Bowl winners accomplished their goal, after all, and to put any one of them behind any other one is to "belittle" them.

Another example, though dated. The last undefeated college basketball team was Indiana University (one of my alma maters) in 1975-1976. They were 32-0. Unblemished. perfect. Ask their coach Bob Knight, any of their players from that team, or any of their fans for that matter how great that team was. They will to a man tell you that it indeed was great, the second best team they ever had!

The previous season they had the same roster (a year younger) plus 3 tough veteran seniors, one a stater, plus 6th and 7th men on the bench. They were better. Deeper. More talented. More dominant. Afer starting 29-0, however, in the last game of the year their leading scorer, college player of the year Scott May broke his arm and was lost for the year. In the tournament two other starters were injured, and they lost in the regional finals (elite 8) to Kentucky. They finished 32-1. The next year, with 3 fewer good players in the rotation, they ran the table. They won the trophy that a freak broken arm and other ill-timed injuries had taken from the team the year before. To say that 1974-1975 non-championship team was not as good as, for example, the 1981 or 1987 Indiana championship team would belittle them and make no sense to those who saw each team with their own eyes.

Subjective?
Yes!
Opinion?
Yes!

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, by your logic if one were to debate who were the best teams in NFL history in the Super Bowl era, the only conclusion would be that it is a 45 team tie. All 45 Super Bowl winners accomplished their goal, after all, and to put any one of them behind any other one is to "belittle" them.

Although not an argument I made, that is actually a decent one. None of those teams could have accomplished more than they did.
I think its a fun exercise to hypothetically compare them, but you aren't really proving anything.
By the way, I was talking about belittling a team that won a SB by saying one in the same year that did not was better. It does not belittle a champion to compare it to another champion from a different season.

Another example, though dated. The last undefeated college basketball team was Indiana University (one of my alma maters) in 1975-1976. They were 32-0. Unblemished. perfect. Ask their coach Bob Knight, any of their players from that team, or any of their fans for that matter how great that team was. They will to a man tell you that it indeed was great, the second best team they ever had!

The previous season they had the same roster (a year younger) plus 3 tough veteran seniors, one a stater, plus 6th and 7th men on the bench. They were better. Deeper. More talented. More dominant. Afer starting 29-0, however, in the last game of the year their leading scorer, college player of the year Scott May broke his arm and was lost for the year. In the tournament two other starters were injured, and they lost in the regional finals (elite 8) to Kentucky. They finished 32-1. The next year, with 3 fewer good players in the rotation, they ran the table. They won the trophy that a freak broken arm and other ill-timed injuries had taken from the team the year before. To say that 1974-1975 non-championship team was not as good as, for example, the 1981 or 1987 Indiana championship team would belittle them and make no sense to those who saw each team with their own eyes.

They were not as good, plain and simple. They did not achieve the goal that the other teams did. Sure it is unfortunate that a circumstance caused them not to be as good, but they simply were not.
Or are you saying they should be awarded the championship because the best team is the one you think would have won if nothing went wrong?
They had 1 season and 1 shot to accomplish a championship. They didn't. The reason isn't really relevant.

Subjective?
Yes!
Opinion?
Yes!

Exactly why its a poor conclusion.

 

[coolguy]

Of course it is about who is best.
What are you using as the reason to choose the best if it isn't who earns the one goal all teams share?
Since the team exists for one season, and has one goal, then whatever you think caused them to win is a characteristic of being the best.
Getting hot and playing your best when the games matter the most is a much more compelling argument for who is best than 'coolguy thinks that team is better because of some statistic'

lolol

By your logic the 8-8 broncos WERE A BETTER team than the steelers just because they beat them.

The superbowl more than anything determines which coach had the best game plan in the playoffs.

 

[Ring 6]

lolol

By your logic the 8-8 broncos WERE A BETTER team than the steelers just because they beat them.

That is not consistent with a single comment I have made in this thread

The superbowl more than anything determines which coach had the best game plan in the playoffs.

You don't think that having the coach who puts together the best game plan in the playoffs is a characteristic of who is the best team?

Lets try this. What is your definition of the best team?
Clearly it does not include what they accomplish on the field. What is your standard to determine which team is best?

 

[RDS11]

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

A better analogy to what I think he meant is a guy that finished second in a given race could register a better time that the winner of another race. Although one is a champion and the other is not, it doesn't mean that the champion would have beaten the 2nd place guy if they had raced at the same time.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Do you really expect PROOF that a team from one season was better or worse than a team from an entirely different season, the topic of this thread?

That would be impossible.
It IS a hypothetical construct.
It is a gedanken experiement.
It MUST BE a hypothetical.
It REQUIRES opinion.

It can be supported by data, by stats, by comparing matchups, abilities of key players, etc. but in the end it comes down to an opinion.

To offer such opinion doesn't necessarily reek of arrogance or belittle the team on the short end of the perceived ranking.

Also, as you have alluded to, in the regular season sometimes the better team LOSES a game.

I submit that on occasion this can happen in the postseason also. Sometimes in the Super Bowl! Like, um.... 4 years ago. The Giants were better that day, with the aid of some improbable events. It's all that mattered.

 

[coolguy]

That is not consistent with a single comment I have made in this thread



You don't think that having the coach who puts together the best game plan in the playoffs is a characteristic of who is the best team?

Lets try this. What is your definition of the best team?
Clearly it does not include what they accomplish on the field. What is your standard to determine which team is best?

I don't think there's a "best team" in the nfl. The team that wins the superbowl rarely leads the league in every stat nor do they have a bunch of all pros on it. It's basically the team that has everything go right for them for 3 to 4 games.

A champion doesn't always mean the best. Ali lost a bunch of fights but meant the person he lost to were better.

 

[Ring 6]

A better analogy to what I think he meant is a guy that finished second in a given race could register a better time that the winner of another race. Although one is a champion and the other is not, it doesn't mean that the champion would have beaten the 2nd place guy if they had raced at the same time.

You are expanding the sample to having more than one race to run.
NFL teams get one shot, what they do with it is the best data on how good they are.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think there's a "best team" in the nfl. The team that wins the superbowl rarely leads the league in every stat nor do they have a bunch of all pros on it. It's basically the team that has everything go right for them for 3 to 4 games.

A champion doesn't always mean the best. Ali lost a bunch of fights but meant the person he lost to were better.

OK. I will just assume you don't want to be serious.

 

[coolguy]

OK. I will just assume you don't want to be serious.

Did you watch superbowl 42, 34, AND 36?

it's called ANY GIVEN SUNDAY for a reason.

 

[Ring 6]

Do you really expect PROOF that a team from one season was better or worse than a team from an entirely different season, the topic of this thread?

I think that winning a championship is the proof.
I didn't say I expected proof, I said that comparing champions to each other is interesting but there is no proof.

That would be impossible.
It IS a hypothetical construct.
It is a gedanken experiement.
It MUST BE a hypothetical.
It REQUIRES opinion.

Not if one won a championship and the other didnt because what happens on the field is not hypothetical.

It can be supported by data, by stats, by comparing matchups, abilities of key players, etc. but in the end it comes down to an opinion.

I agree if both teams accomplished to the same level. I've said nothing to dispute that.

To offer such opinion doesn't necessarily reek of arrogance or belittle the team on the short end of the perceived ranking.[/2quote]
Only if you are trying to argue the team that did not accomplish a championship is better than the team that did in the same season.

Also, as you have alluded to, in the regular season sometimes the better team LOSES a game.

Of course.

I submit that on occasion this can happen in the postseason also. Sometimes in the Super Bowl! Like, um.... 4 years ago. The Giants were better that day, with the aid of some improbable events. It's all that mattered.

This is where you lose it. What makes the 2007 Patriots better than the 2007 Giants? They won more meaningless games? So.
Every team sets out to win the SB. Whatever characteristics add up to accomplishing that on the field equal best far more than any opinion anyone can give about what factors they consider more important.
Both teams seasons led to the point where they met in the SB. That was the one opportunity those teams had. The Giants succeeded the Pats failed. I don't know how a definition of 'better' could find anything that overrides that.

Do you think the 53 players on the Patriots would choose to have gone 10-6 and win the SB against the 18-1 Giants over what happened? Of course every one of them would. THEY know the Giants were the best team that year by every measure that matters.

 

[Ring 6]

Did you watch superbowl 42, 34, AND 36?

it's called ANY GIVEN SUNDAY for a reason.

So your argument is that the team that lost is better because you thought they were going to win, and your prediction is more accurate than what happens on the field?
Did those teams not deserve to win?

I'm not talking about any given sunday, I am talking about an entire season working toward a goal.

You still haven't answered what criteria you use to decide which team is the best if winning the SB doesn't matter.

 

[coolguy]

So your argument is that the team that lost is better because you thought they were going to win, and your prediction is more accurate than what happens on the field?
Did those teams not deserve to win?

I'm not talking about any given sunday, I am talking about an entire season working toward a goal.

You still haven't answered what criteria you use to decide which team is the best if winning the SB doesn't matter.

Winning the superbowl means a team was healthier, made less mistakes, and had out coached the opposing coach for 3 to 4 games.
Coaching, injuries, efficiency plays, and capitalizing on inefficient mistakes are what wins the superbowl.

LOL a team could go 7-9 and win the superbowl.

 

[Haley]

So your argument is that the team that lost is better because you thought they were going to win, and your prediction is more accurate than what happens on the field?
Did those teams not deserve to win?

I'm not talking about any given sunday, I am talking about an entire season working toward a goal.

You still haven't answered what criteria you use to decide which team is the best if winning the SB doesn't matter.

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that any team that has an unlucky Super Bowl and loses because of luck is by definition the worse team? That would imply that luck is some sort of intangible team skill, would it not? I get what you are saying and i think you make a strong point but I'm not sure the logic plays out entirely.

 

[Ivan]

The team that wins the championship is the best team that, what fans think and say doesn't matter one rat's ass, that is strictly their opinion. There's a reason they actually play the games and I am pretty certain this is it, to determine who the best team is.

 

[TruthSeeker]

[the best team always wins because the winner is the best team]

This is ridiculous, Andy. Are you saying that the 2010 Packers were the best team in 2010 because the Giants collapsed to the Eagles in the 2nd half allowing the Packers into the playoffs? And that if the Giants don't collapse to the Eagles that this exact same Packers team is not the best team? You can see the difficulty with this claim (or at least I can).

That's just one really obvious example. There are other examples such as a blown call at the end of the game that literally changes the result.

And, of course, we all know that decided underdogs catch breaks and win games when the balls bounce their way. Does this mean that that the 9 win team is better than the 15 win team when they get all the breaks in a game (whether the breaks include ball bounces, ref calls/non-calls or even unexpectedly good performances from average players)?

It is so arbitrary to say that a team is best simply because they win 1 game. And when the lose the next game to the same team, say the other team is best.

I agree with you that teams that claim "the better team didn't win" are guilty of sour grapes. It doesn't matter whether or not the claim is true; that's never the way to deal with a loss.

The only way you can claim that the best team always wins is to make it a meaningless tautology as you have: because they won they are the best team regardless of how the result was accomplished. I think thoughtful analysis demands the a lot more be taken into account than simply the points on a scoreboard after a game when determining "best".

All that being said, I'm perfectly content to let the team that wins the Super Bowl claim to be the best and be recognized as the best even though they may not be. This is because determining "best" is to some extent subjective, not totally objective (as you would like it to be) and the winners get to carry the title even if it may not be true. Such is life.

 

[Ivan]

Winning the superbowl means a team was healthier, made less mistakes, and had out coached the opposing coach for 3 to 4 games.
Coaching, injuries, efficiency plays, and capitalizing on inefficient mistakes are what wins the superbowl.

LOL a team could go 7-9 and win the superbowl.

What player in their right mind would ever want to hoist the Lombardi at the end of a Super Bowl win when they could lose in the divisional round, play golf early, and show everyone a post from you telling the world the results don't matter because you say they are still the best.