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

[Lansdowne]

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.

I'm splitting hairs here but I'd say our 2003 "Homeland Defense" is still the best in franchise history. 2004 Patriots our most complete team. And for 2007 we were roughly 36 seconds away from effectively ending the debate of who the best Patriots team of all-time is. Not finishing the job, keeps that debate alive, IMO at least.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I'm splitting hairs here but I'd say our 2003 "Homeland Defense" is still the best in franchise history. 2004 Patriots our most complete team. And for 2007 we were roughly 36 seconds away from effectively ending the debate of who the best Patriots team of all-time is. Not finishing the job, keeps that debate alive, IMO at least.

How can 03 be better than the more complete team of 04?

I did love the 03 team. For that team to go 14-2 and 3-0 in the playoffs was pretty remarkable considering how they won their games. It seemed that in every game that they played there were always 3-4 plays that determined the outcome- and they always made 'em. Always.

 

[Lansdowne]

How can 03 be better than the more complete team of 04?

I did love the 03 team. For that team to go 14-2 and 3-0 in the playoffs was pretty remarkable considering how they won their games. It seemed that in every game that they played there were always 3-4 plays that determined the outcome- and they always made 'em. Always.

Speaking strictly in terms of the defensive unit for 2003. When factoring the WHOLE team, offense/defense/special teams, that goes to 2004. But don't forget the 2004 D was riddled with injuries to the point where Troy Brown was playing prominently in the secondary, and bringing in guys like Hank Poteat and Earthwind Moreland, and finding a gem in undrafted Randall Gay. The 2003 D had the better NT (Ted Washington vs. 04's Keith Traylor), and a healthy Ty Law and Tyrone Poole played at a Pro Bowl level. Everybody else personnel wise is identical between the two defenses. I just think if comparing defenses only, 2003 comes out on top.

 

[RDS11]

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.

Yes, I'm expanding the sample. But we have to. If we are to do the exercise of comparing teams from different seasons, who did not raced at the same time, then we cannot assume that the winner of one race is better than the runner-up of another race.

As you mention, the lifetime of a team is a year. They are build to succeed (or not) in that year. They are build to run one race. In my analogy, each race is a different year.

The term 'better' is subjective. Depends on how you define it. If you say a team is better than the other because they reached their goal while the others did not, then fine. It's a valid definition to compare teams that competed in the same race. But you cannot use that definition to compare teams from different seasons, because none of those teams raced against each other, each had their own race. For example, I would argue that even though the 1950 Browns were NFL Champions, reaching the ultimate team goal they had that year, the 2008 Detroit Lions would probably squash them in a head-to-head meeting.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Speaking strictly in terms of the defensive unit for 2003. When factoring the WHOLE team, offense/defense/special teams, that goes to 2004. But don't forget the 2004 D was riddled with injuries to the point where Troy Brown was playing prominently in the secondary, and bringing in guys like Hank Poteat and Earthwind Moreland, and finding a gem in undrafted Randall Gay. The 2003 D had the better NT (Ted Washington vs. 04's Keith Traylor), and a healthy Ty Law and Tyrone Poole played at a Pro Bowl level. Everybody else personnel wise is identical between the two defenses. I just think if comparing defenses only, 2003 comes out on top.

I would agree that the 03 defense was better then the 04 defense.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, I'm expanding the sample. But we have to. If we are to do the exercise of comparing teams from different seasons, who did not raced at the same time, then we cannot assume that the winner of one race is better than the runner-up of another race.

But that example is poor because that runner will run another race. Thios championship teams will never play another game.
If that were the only race of the runners life, it could make a good example, but my argument would remain the same, the runner who ran 10.34 to win would be conisdered better than the runner who ran 10.30 to finish second because the purpose of running a RACE is to win, not to post a time.

As you mention, the lifetime of a team is a year. They are build to succeed (or not) in that year. They are build to run one race. In my analogy, each race is a different year.

But you cannot do that, because the runner is the same and the teams are very differnet. A runners lifespan is not one race, and pretending it is queers the analogy.

The term 'better' is subjective. Depends on how you define it. If you say a team is better than the other because they reached their goal while the others did not, then fine.

I think its the only way to define it. What could convince you a team that didnt achieve the singular goal is better than one that did?
They may be better at many things, but they are not better at the one sole thing that is the purpose the team exists for.

It's a valid definition to compare teams that competed in the same race. But you cannot use that definition to compare teams from different seasons, because none of those teams raced against each other, each had their own race. For example, I would argue that even though the 1950 Browns were NFL Champions, reaching the ultimate team goal they had that year, the 2008 Detroit Lions would probably squash them in a head-to-head meeting.

Who would win a head to head meeting is not the determination of who is better. The goal of the 1950 Browns was not to convince you they could beat a team of players that wouldn't be born for 30 years, but to win a championship. They are better at, for lack of a better way to phrase it, being a team.

 

[Ring 6]

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).

I am saying they are the best team because they accomplished what everyone defines as the goal of all 32 teams.
Who are you saying was the best team of 2010 and what is your logic?

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.

Again, you are trying to define best as who you think is supposed to win when the result is already known. I find that silly.

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)?

The goal of a team isn't to amass the most regular season wins, but to win the SB. There are surely positives and negatives about every team, but a hypothetical exercise in weighing each of them to determine who you think is best is silly when we have results on the field to answer the question.
You do agree the purpose of a team is to go out on the field and win a SB, not to accumaate an argument about how good they are.
You sound like Rex Ryan.

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 haven't said the winner of an individual game is the best, I said the SBG Champion is the best. Steps along the path to the answer do not define the answer.

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".

How? They play to win. Are you saying losing pretty is better than winning?
It is not circular to say the team that meets the defintion of best is the best. There is an established way to decide who is best, on the field.
I suppose you can call a different team best at something, but they cannot be called best at the purpose they exist for, unless they achieve it.

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.

It is only subjective if you move the goal posts and say that you want to use something other than the purpose the team exists for to define who is better. That is a subjective change of the QUESTION, not the answer.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

I think that the result on the field overrides excuses like being unlucky.
Again, the purpose the team exists for is to win the SB. There is really no way to define best other than who reached that goal. I suppose you could make excuses for why another coulda, shoulda, or woulda been the best, but the question is answered unequivocably on the field.
What would the team that was 'unlucky' be better at? Winnng if everything goes there way? Winning without needing to overcome adversity? However you slice it they were not the best and accomplishing the singular goal that they exist to accomplish.

 

[ProudestRyno]

But that example is poor because that runner will run another race. Thios championship teams will never play another game.
If that were the only race of the runners life, it could make a good example, but my argument would remain the same, the runner who ran 10.34 to win would be conisdered better than the runner who ran 10.30 to finish second because the purpose of running a RACE is to win, not to post a time.


But you cannot do that, because the runner is the same and the teams are very differnet. A runners lifespan is not one race, and pretending it is queers the analogy.


I think its the only way to define it. What could convince you a team that didnt achieve the singular goal is better than one that did?
They may be better at many things, but they are not better at the one sole thing that is the purpose the team exists for.



Who would win a head to head meeting is not the determination of who is better. The goal of the 1950 Browns was not to convince you they could beat a team of players that wouldn't be born for 30 years, but to win a championship. They are better at, for lack of a better way to phrase it, being a team.

This whole post is hilarious. And to the bolded part. That's simply incorrect. I know it's your opinion, but you're WAY off.

At the combine for running the 40's. If a DT runs the fastest of all other DTs, does that mean he's "faster" than the WR who ran the 5th fastest? Even if that WR had an obviously better time?

No.

You might laugh at my analogy, but the point stands. Be it different situation, or different time, different circumstances all together. Just because Team A won it all one year does NOT mean they are better than Team B who was runner up another year. Sometimes, sure, they can, but it's not as simple as "well team A won and team B didn't."

Are the 2007 Patriots better than the 2002 Bucs? Absolutely. But by your "logic" they're not.

 

[ProudestRyno]

I think that the result on the field overrides excuses like being unlucky.
Again, the purpose the team exists for is to win the SB. There is really no way to define best other than who reached that goal. I suppose you could make excuses for why another coulda, shoulda, or woulda been the best, but the question is answered unequivocably on the field.
What would the team that was 'unlucky' be better at? Winnng if everything goes there way? Winning without needing to overcome adversity? However you slice it they were not the best and accomplishing the singular goal that they exist to accomplish.

I suppose if the Seahawks won the Superbowl last year after they backed into the playoffs at 7-9, you'd be willing to say they were without a doubt the most talented, best team last year then right? Give me a break.

Nothing like a good laugh on a Friday afternoon.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Tom Brady would be the first to admit that he wasn't half the QB in 2001 that he is in 2011.

People forget that the offense was significantly simplified for Brady at first and he wasn't really being asked to do as much as he does today.

If Brady's better, the team's better.

 

[Ring 6]

This whole post is hilarious. And to the bolded part. That's simply incorrect. I know it's your opinion, but you're WAY off.

At the combine for running the 40's. If a DT runs the fastest of all other DTs, does that mean he's "faster" than the WR who ran the 5th fastest? Even if that WR had an obviously better time?

That has totally nothing to do with what I am saying.
If they ran RACES are you saying the guy who came in 5th is a better at winning races than the guy who won?
You can't misapply an analogy and think your conslusion has any validity.

You might laugh at my analogy, but the point stands.

Because it is laughable.

Be it different situation, or different time, different circumstances all together. Just because Team A won it all one year does NOT mean they are better than Team B who was runner up another year. Sometimes, sure, they can, but it's not as simple as "well team A won and team B didn't
Are the 2007 Patriots better than the 2002 Bucs? Absolutely. But by your "logic" they're not.

Excellent, that is exactly what I was going to ask you.
Please give your explanation as to why the 2007 Patriots were a better team than the 2002 Bucs.

 

[ProudestRyno]

That has totally nothing to do with what I am saying.
If they ran RACES are you saying the guy who came in 5th is a better at winning races than the guy who won?
You can't misapply an analogy and think your conslusion has any validity.


Because it is laughable.


Excellent, that is exactly what I was going to ask you.
Please give your explanation as to why the 2007 Patriots were a better team than the 2002 Bucs.

Um, YOU said that the guy who won with 10.34 is better than the guy who finished 2nd in the same race on another day at 10:30. Just a stupid way to judge someone's ability as a runner.
Answer my question about the 2010 Seahawks...

 

[Ring 6]

I suppose if the Seahawks won the Superbowl last year after they backed into the playoffs at 7-9, you'd be willing to say they were without a doubt the most talented, best team last year then right? Give me a break.

I never said most talented. But best is most appropriately defined as the team who accomplishes the singular shared goal that all of the teams exist for.
Who do you think was the best team last year? I guess it can't be GB.

Nothing like a good laugh on a Friday afternoon.

Right, its so funny to judge football teams by what they do in real life on the football field.
How did your fantasy team do this year?

 

[Ring 6]

Answer my question about the 2010 Seahawks...

I did.
They were not the best team because they didn't win the SB. In your bizarro world where they were so much better than they actually were and they won the SB, they would have been the best. Of course they wouldn't have been 7-9 either.

 

[Ring 6]

Um, YOU said that the guy who won with 10.34 is better than the guy who finished 2nd in the same race on another day at 10:30. Just a stupid way to judge someone's ability as a runner.
Answer my question about the 2010 Seahawks...

I wasn't judging his ability as a runner, I was judging his ability to win races, given that he only had one opportuinity, like a football team does.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

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

Yes, to assess how two teams from different years would fare against each other is a hypothetical, because unless you have a time machine, they cannot line up against each other. Is this hard, are you dense, or just an extreme contrarian?

Two teams being compared, say 2007 and 2001, did not face the same competition. Far more often than not, the best team (which is an OPINION) is likely the champion, when only one of them won a championship. For certain the team with the most successful season did win the championship.

What if, as Robert Kraft alluded to, 10 years ago the head linesman did not understand the tuck rule, did not reverse the fumble, and Oakland won? Then season would have been over due to an officiating mistake. Similarly egregious mistakes often happen- see the non-reversed Green Bay fumble.
Would the bad officiating decision have made the 2001 Patriots less talented? It certainly would have made the SEASON less successful, but the team would have been unchanged in their ability and capability, though not in their accomplishment.

That is for me. You will argue about the meaning of “better”, the meaning of anything for that matter, seeking in Clintonian fashion to debate “what the meaning of is is”.

I can, at this point, just agree to disagree.

 

[Ring 6]

Tom Brady would be the first to admit that he wasn't half the QB in 2001 that he is in 2011.

People forget that the offense was significantly simplified for Brady at first and he wasn't really being asked to do as much as he does today.

If Brady's better, the team's better.

If Brady is better and the team loses, the team isn't better.

 

[RobertWeathers]

"

Are the 2007 Patriots better than the 2002 Bucs? Absolutely. But by your "logic" they're not.

I deleted the rest of your premise because I see where you are going with this.

In a nutshell, comparing current great sports teams/athletes to past eras is good conversation but impossible to measure accurately for a number of reasons (rule changes, nutrition, size/speed of players, etc.) For example, if you took Jessie Owens from 1936 and put him in the same training dynamic as Usain Bolt, he just might be as good- or he might not. Obviously there is no true way to know so accomplishments are the only way to quantify it.

Based on my premise the 2002 Bucs were a better team than the 2007 Pats because they won the Super Bowl. If they played head-to-head what would happen? Who knows?

It all goes back to how in sports you measure "better".

Did the 2007 Pats have more talent than the 02 Bucs? Sure

Did the 2001 Rams have more talent than the 02 Bucs? Sure

Are the 2004 Pats better than the 2002 Bucs? Who knows. Now you need to start using additional qualifiers like talent, wins, accomplishments, style points, etc.

Need to agree on how to measure or you guys will be going at this forever as there is no right answer.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, to assess how two teams from different years would fare against each other is a hypothetical, because unless you have a time machine, they cannot line up against each other. Is this hard, are you dense, or just an extreme contrarian?

When have I ever said this discussion had anything to do with who would win if the 2 teams played each other? In fact, i have completley rejected that premise all along, as irrelevant in determining who was a better team, because they don't play to be considered able to beat a future team, they play to win the SB.

Two teams being compared, say 2007 and 2001, did not face the same competition. Far more often than not, the best team (which is an OPINION) is likely the champion, when only one of them won a championship. For certain the team with the most successful season did win the championship.

Thats just the point, best is not an opinion, it is decided in real life on the field.
How can a team that wasn't the most successful at achieving the goal a team exists for be better than one that did?
Better at what?

What if, as Robert Kraft alluded to, 10 years ago the head linesman did not understand the tuck rule, did not reverse the fumble, and Oakland won? Then season would have been over due to an officiating mistake. Similarly egregious mistakes often happen- see the non-reversed Green Bay fumble.
Would the bad officiating decision have made the 2001 Patriots less talented? It certainly would have made the SEASON less successful, but the team would have been unchanged in their ability and capability, though not in their accomplishment.

I have never talked about more talented in this entire thread.
I am talking about BEST, and to me the definition is clear. You can come up with all kind of hypothetical possibilities that never ocurred to try to punch a hypothetical hole in that definition, but you have not come close to offering a better one.

That is for me. You will argue about the meaning of “better”, the meaning of anything for that matter, seeking in Clintonian fashion to debate “what the meaning of is is”.

How am I arguing about the meaning, but you aren't?
I have defined the meaning very clearly and unwaveringly. You have not even explained how you define best. We aren't arguing, I am explaining what I mean by best, and you are not willing to.

I can, at this point, just agree to disagree.[/QUOTE]
We must then.
If you cannot accept that the definiton of the better team is the one that is better at accomplishing the singular goal that they all have on the field, and think that hypothetical maybes are a better judgment than the football they actually played, we should walk away from the discussion.