Bold Statement: 2014 receiving corps is the best in franchise history

[FourierSeries]

Moss 2007 > Gronk 2014
WWW 2007 > Edelman 2014
Stallworth 2007 > Amendola 2014
Gaffney 2007 > All other TEs and WRs 2014
Faulk 2007 > Vereen 2014 (Hell, go ahead and call this even if you want)

That's not even adding Ben Watson to the mix

Your arguments in this thread have sucked. And that's being kind about it. You made a lousy thread, and then you made even worse follow up posts. Own it and move on. It is what it is.

I disagree with your very subjective rankings. What isn't subjective however, is that the 2014 passing offense was infinitely better than the 2007 version in the postseason. And it isn't even close.

 

[IllegalContact]

making these comparisons is a waste of time.

nobody would be making this comparison if the pats were able to cope with the interior pass rush that the giants displayed.

now if you want to compare expectation versus result, then yeah, this group gets it.

I also think that the scheme and playcalling helped this group.........they took what was given, and the 2007 team did not attempt that

 

[Bruins29]

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. I was following the team during their 3 in 4 SB run. I would easily take either of the 2003 or 2004 defense over the 2014. Even the 2001 defense probably performed better in the playoffs than the 2014 version, given what they were able to do against the Rams.

What this 2014 offense did in the postseason is unprecedented. Again, you put more emphasis on regular season success and records. That's fine. By that criteria you'd also probably rate Peyton ahead of Brady. I don't. I remain consistent in my claim that postseason success outweighs regular season accomplishments.

The fact of the matter is that Randy Moss is an all-time great. But he did absolutely nothing for us in the postseason. He had far better playoff performances for the Vikings than he did in NE. This is an undeniable fact.

Our very own coach once said that "it's about building a team, not collecting talent." That the 2007 receiving unit had more individual talent is irrelevant. The 2014 unit produced when it mattered. And no, it's not just because they won a SB. It's that they produced at a very high level.

And if we're taking about individual receivers in the clutch, I would rate 3 ahead of both Welker and Moss:

1. Troy Brown
2. Deion Branch
3 Julian Edelman

In that order.

Great, but I wasnt talking to you or even about you. You seem awfully defensive. And its great that the 2014 unit produced. AS stated many times, the D held this time. In 2007 the D could not. It is what it is and if that is how you want to measure clutch, go ahead. 2007 did what it had to do to go down in history every night. 2014 got lucky that Seattle had a brain meltdown at the end of the game and Butler made a play. Not sure why people want to rewrite history over the slimmest of margins....but whatever.

And if you have been following football so long you would have factored in the already mentioned changes in the league that made it much easier for WR to play.

I am sure you think Joe Flacco is more clutch that Dan Mariono. Congratulations.

 

[Froob]

Even assuming Gronk counts and that he's equal to Moss (very debatable, though that's a credit to Gronk)...

1) Gronk = Moss
2) Edelman < Welker
3) Vereen < Faulk
4) Amendola < Gaffney
5) Wright < Watson
6) Dobson/Tyms < Stallworth
7) Hoomanwanui < Brady

The 2014 corps was pretty much inferior in every imaginable way. Which, again, isn't really a big deal. 2007 was among the greatest receiving corps ever assembled (its top rivals probably being Rice/Craig/Taylor or whoever just because Rice was so incredible, and Harrison/Wayne/Clark).

If you're basing it on whether a team wins a Super Bowl, well, they win in 2007 if Asante Samuel holds onto the football and lose in 2014 if Malcolm Butler drops the football. Neither of which had anything to do with the offense.

did we watch the same sbs? 07 played far worst against a far worst defense. 07 defense actually played better against an offense that I would give the nod to in weapons vs seattle.

 

[FourierSeries]

Great, but I wasnt talking to you or even about you. You seem awfully defensive. And its great that the 2014 unit produced. AS stated many times, the D held this time. In 2007 the D could not. It is what it is and if that is how you want to measure clutch, go ahead. 2007 did what it had to do to go down in history every night. 2014 got lucky that Seattle had a brain meltdown at the end of the game and Butler made a play. Not sure why people want to rewrite history over the slimmest of margins....but whatever.

And if you have been following football so long you would have factored in the already mentioned changes in the league that made it much easier for WR to play.

I am sure you think Joe Flacco is more clutch that Dan Mariono. Congratulations.

Again, this offense's output is independent of that final INT. Just as the 2007's offense is independent of the Tyree catch. Even if they 2014 team had lost on the final play, their production would have still been far superior than the 2007.

Look at the difference between the two. Nearly 100 passing yards per game and 14 points. You'd have a difficult time arguing that it was solely a result of rule changes, as the increasing in scoring hasn't increased to the point where it could be used as a significant reason for the difference in production.

Additionally, it also doesn't explain the large drop off from regular season to postseason in 2007.

 

[JackBauer]

did we watch the same sbs? 07 played far worst against a far worst defense. 07 defense actually played better against an offense that I would give the nod to in weapons vs seattle.

The Giants might've had a worse defense overall, but what they did have in spades was quality pass rushers. Combine that with Neal's ill-timed injury and that's all she wrote.

 

[Bruins29]

I am a little confused, while I agree with that the goal posts have been moved so many times here I cant keep track.

First is was which WR corp was better.
Then is sorta turned into which was better in the playoffs
Now its which was more clutch when it counted.

Why dont we just go with which one won a superbowl. Lets see how the votes go. OK everyone GO!

 

[Froob]

The Giants might've had a worse defense overall, but what they did have in spades was quality pass rushers. Combine that with Neal's ill-timed injury and that's all she wrote. That said, can't agree with you that Seattle's offense was better.

Probably worded it poorly but ment giants offense was better.

 

[50-yard-line]

I'll go back and look at regular season games against top defenses for both years, but for now here is the postseason production:

2007 Postseason
228 passing yards per game
22 points scored per game

2014 Postseason
316 passing yards per game
36 points scored per game

In 2014 our offense was almost entirely dependent on the passing game in the postseason against two very good defenses (and Indy.) Seattle's defense was better than NYG's overall and Baltimore presented some of the same problems, though obviously the Giants Dline was better.

3 games is a small sample size but the difference in output is large.

A more interesting and in depth analysis would be to perform a regression analysis and see what the expected outcome would have been based on each regular season and see how they outperformed or underperformed in each year in the postseason. Maybe I'll do that tomorrow.

Oh, and Edelman is more athletic and versatile than Welker. I'd take him over Welker in a heart beat. More clutch too.

Too small a sample size and too many other variables. In the 2007 SB, New England had injuries on the offensive line which let the Giants crash with four on Brady every down.

The line this year held up very well against that Seattle pass rush.

And I'll add in, for all the crap he takes here, Josh McDaniels' game plan in the SB was near perfect. it was a work of art, actually.

 

[JackBauer]

Probably worded it poorly but ment giants offense was better.

Ah, then we agree.

 

[kudzif]

did we watch the same sbs? 07 played far worst against a far worst defense. 07 defense actually played better against an offense that I would give the nod to in weapons vs seattle.

07 Superbowl was the worst o-line play in the Brady/Belichick era and it's not even close.If Brady had the time he had in 2007 that he had in 2014 we would have won handily.Have you completely forgotten that , but even with that they eventually put the team in the same situation as the 2014 team. Again, the only difference is 2014 defense made a play where the 2007 defense could not.

 

[juny]

I am a little confused, while I agree with that the goal posts have been moved so many times here I cant keep track.

First is was which WR corp was better.
Then is sorta turned into which was better in the playoffs
Now its which was more clutch when it counted.

Why dont we just go with which one won a superbowl. Lets see how the votes go. OK everyone GO!

Agree, WR/TE alone, there is no argument. 2007 was better.

Now people are throwing in SB performance. If the OL didn't crap the bed in 07, there is no discussion but the thread title is RECEIVING corps, not the OL, not the defense, not team effort.

 

[Bruins29]

The Giants might've had a worse defense overall, but what they did have in spades was quality pass rushers. Combine that with Neal's ill-timed injury and that's all she wrote. That said, can't agree with you that Seattle's offense was better.

You cant win. These guys move goal posts so quickly and cherry pick stats (After the fact) that its impossible to have an convo,

Just as you could say the hobbled Seattle team should have been easy pickings for this elite group and they barely won and that is with Vareen completely bailing this WR group out.

You can spin anything anyway you want.

Facts are, if you sat down with football people (who actually knew what they were talking about) and the subject of greatest offenses off all time came up, I really doubt the 2014 Pats would be in the discussion.

The 2001 pats were more clutch, facing a tougher opponent, and won the Gold.

 

[FourierSeries]

I am a little confused, while I agree with that the goal posts have been moved so many times here I cant keep track.

First is was which WR corp was better.
Then is sorta turned into which was better in the playoffs
Now its which was more clutch when it counted.

Why dont we just go with which one won a superbowl. Lets see how the votes go. OK everyone GO!

They haven't changed. My point from the beginning was that this year's version was better because they performed in the playoffs. We rate QBs based on how they've performed in the playoffs. It may be a bit harder to do with receiving corps given that they don't usually stay the same from year to year and so the sample size of playoff games is not that large, but when the difference in output is so great, it warrants an argument.

 

[primetime]

Too small a sample size and too many other variables. In the 2007 SB, New England had injuries on the offensive line which let the Giants crash with four on Brady every down.

Small sample size? Man, this is arguing about football on the internet, a player's "legacy" is decided in 60 minutes of football in the Super Bowl.

 

[kudzif]

Again, this offense's output is independent of that final INT. Just as the 2007's offense is independent of the Tyree catch. Even if they 2014 team had lost on the final play, their production would have still been far superior than the 2007.

Look at the difference between the two. Nearly 100 passing yards per game and 14 points. You'd have a difficult time arguing that it was solely a result of rule changes, as the increasing in scoring hasn't increased to the point where it could be used as a significant reason for the difference in production.

Additionally, it also doesn't explain the large drop off from regular season to postseason in 2007.

If our o line played as they did in the 2007 Superbowl it would have been worse than 2007. In game circumstances also matter like facing a decimated Ravens secondary.

 

[FourierSeries]

Too small a sample size and too many other variables. In the 2007 SB, New England had injuries on the offensive line which let the Giants crash with four on Brady every down.

The line this year held up very well against that Seattle pass rush.

And I'll add in, for all the crap he takes here, Josh McDaniels' game plan in the SB was near perfect. it was a work of art, actually.

Baltimore got to Brady on numerous occasions. You'll remember that Stork went down that game. So this year's Oline wasn't healthy throughout the playoff run either. The difference is that this year's receiving unit allowed Brady to get the ball out before being hit with their speed and ability to get open.

 

[Froob]

07 Superbowl was the worst o-line play in the Brady/Belichick era and it's not even close.If Brady had the time he had in 2007 that he had in 2014 we would have won handily.Have you completely forgotten that , but even with that they eventually put the team in the same situation as the 2014 team. Again, the only difference is 2014 defense made a play where the 2007 defense could not.

no it isnt, 07 offense was the reason we lost and 14 offense was the reason we won. For the record I think 07 was better but hit some untimley injuries. Brady sprained ankle was largely ignored. Both losses to the giants were on the offense though injuries or not. You don't win many sbs scoring 14 & 17.

 

[Bruins29]

Small sample size? Man, this is arguing about football on the internet, a player's "legacy" is decided in 60 minutes of football in the Super Bowl.

Which is why you cant put Marino over Flacco. We got it.

 

[Fencer]

2014 Josh McDaniels > 2007 Josh McDaniels