Comparing the Best

TIMEsteelersfan · Dec 12, 2007

Looking at the highest scoring offenses of all time, what are the biggest differences between your team and theirs? Why will you win it all when they couldn't?

98' Vikings scored 556 and didn't win the Superbowl.
83' Skins scored 541 and didn't win the Superbowl.
00' Rams scored 540 and didn't win the Superbowl.
84' Dolphins scored 512 and didn't win the Superbowl.

To top it off, the Rams and Vikings didn't even make the Superbowl... I'm not talking smack here, just making an observation. Your team is different obviously, but what do you guys think? Is your defense championship caliber? Thoughts?

Fixit · Dec 12, 2007

I'll take 4th in the NFL in points against, even after playing 6 of the top 10 scoring offenses in football, anytime.

danny88 · Dec 12, 2007

Good enough to hold teams like the steelers in check while our O slaps them around.

PatriotsReign · Dec 12, 2007

because NONE of those teams dominated the league the way the Patriots have. We've beaten Dallas, Pittsburgh and the Chargers soundly and also beat Indy...all the best...week, after week.

You've seen it yourself, so you tell us why we won't win the SB

Ring 6 · Dec 12, 2007

Ask Roethlisbherger and his buddies who scored 13 points vs it

TIMEsteelersfan · Dec 12, 2007

I'm not saying you will or you won't... just a good question comparing them to the previous powerhouse offensees the league has seen. Who you've played is a good argument I can see that, what else you got?

Fixit · Dec 12, 2007

Uh, what else you need?

TIMEsteelersfan · Dec 12, 2007

This thread's not about the Steelers guy, let's not make it about them okay.

Deus Irae · Dec 12, 2007

How about this:

Teams likely to be in the AFC playoffs besides New England are

Indianapolis
Pittsburgh
Cleveland
San Diego
Jacksonville

Of that group of 5, New England has beaten four of them already this season. The 5th, Jacksonville, just lost Stroud to the IR.

After that, it's a matter of Dallas (beaten), Green Bay, or one of the lesser lights of the NFC.

Xzibit23 · Dec 12, 2007

As a fan of the Vikings and a person who closely followed the '98 team that broke my heart lemme shed my thoughts on that team in particular. Unlike the Minnesota teams that followed them, they actually had a very good defense. Their defense was very similar to the PAts defense today, it was a bend but dont break defense. The Offense had similarities to the NE offense with Carter playing the Wes Welker role, but you guys are a better passing team because of Brady, while that team had a better RB in Robert Smith. Where the Pats would have the edge are intangibles like coaching and experience, having been there before.

At the end of the day, history will remember those Vikings as a 15-1 team who choked in the playoffs. But make no mistake, a series of unlucky events had to transpire for them to lose the NFCG in overtime. Our kicker who was perfect all season missed a chip shot which would've ended it, Cunningham lost the ball at our 5 yard line to let Atlanta tie the game and send it to OT. They were a much better team than the Falcons, that game is the reason why people say "Any given Sunday." I still believe to this day that they were the best team that year and would've beaten Denver. I believe that wholeheartedly, but of course history won't judge them that way.

bradmahn · Dec 12, 2007

But a topic that was raised was the New England Patriots' defense, which held the Steelers to 13 points. They also held the Dallas Cowboys and Indianapolis Colts (the number 2 and number 3 teams in offensive scoring) to 20 offensive points each, 12.5 and 9.3 points below their season averages, respectively. The Cleveland Browns, the fifth highest scoring team this season, was held to 10.7 pts below their average, and the Bengals and Steelers (7th and 8th with an average of 23.8 pts/game) were held to 10.8 points below their season averages.

Look at that, of the league's ten highest scoring offenses the Patriots have played six of them, and held all of them to considerably lower than their season averages. And, the Pats are ranked 4th in scoring defense overall. What's wrong with that defense?

Ishdul · Dec 12, 2007

I won't try to speak on either of the two 80's teams since I never saw them, but the 2000 Rams had the worst defense in the league and were nothing more than an average 10 win team and the 1998 Vikings had to go up against 13-3 Atlanta who they weren't that much better than (and would've gone up against the Broncos, who I'd say were definitely the better team). I don't see what your point is, unless you're saying that top offenses can't win championships or something equally odd.

Patsfanin Philly · Dec 12, 2007

Here's the difference. all of those teams had defenses that were statistically at or worse than the league average in yards allowed

Team year points allowed rank/32 ----------yards allowed rank
98 Vikings ------- 6 ---------------- 15
83 Redskins --------11 ------------ 16
2000 Rams ------ 31 ------------- 24
84 Dolphins --------7 --- ----------- 19
2007 Patriots ---------4 ------------- 6

This year's Patriots are one of the league leaders in stinginess and that to me is the main difference b/n the teams.

mgteich · Dec 12, 2007

We should win because

1) We are much better than any of our AFC competitors, although the colts are likely to play us competitively.
2) We are a far better team than Dallas or Green Bay.
3) We are a better team than the one of the best of all time (the 03 and 04 patriots).
4) This year's defense is better than any of our SB winning defenses.

The issue for me is whether we will be as dominant as the 1985 Bears in the playoffs. For me, they were the best team for a single season, partly because of their dominance.

I do believe that Belichick's patriots, the Brady Bunch, is best of the dynasties. This decade has produced three SB victories, with three more opportunities to go in the decade.

Rawky77 · Dec 12, 2007

The biggest difference is this team is not a fluke of talent meets opportunity without a coaching staff equal to its ability.
BB and his staff are implementers of this offense and its defense rather then simply lucky hangers on for the ride or obsessed egomaniacs attempting to prove to the world they are geniuses.

The coaching staff is equal to the talent and aware of the opportunity window to create records never before seen, but never will they do it at the expense of winning the game.

CTPatsFan · Dec 12, 2007

It don't mean a thing if you ain't got that ring. Doo whop, doo whop, doo whop.

The D has shown flashes. Especially when TB gets the O on those 5-7 minute drives, methodically moving the ball down the field for a score and the D gets some rest. I was a little concerned after the PHI and BAL games, a bit less so after the PIT game. I think the D has enough to come up big when they need to.

Sure there have been plenty of blowouts, but this team just knows how to play with its back against the wall.

Bostonian1962 · Dec 12, 2007

This one is EASY! Those teams didn't have argueably the best QB of All Time leading their team. Also, the Patriots have won the Super Bowl with many from this team BEFORE they had such a high powered offense. A Super Bowl won't be new to Vrabel, and Bruschi, and Harrison, and Gay, and many others, so we know they can win it. Why would now having an even better offense hurt "our" chances????? Oh, and this team has one of the best head coaches in history as well.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie · Dec 12, 2007

Ya know, I think the Pats will win it. But you never know, Pats could lose their first playoff game.

The Patriots are the most likely team to win the SB. Every stat showing how in the past the team that was the most likely, didn't doesn't change the fact that the Pats are the most likely.

But just because they are the most likely, doesn't mean they will.

Just like every stat that shows how good the Pats are doesn't change the fact the Patriots are very capable of losing.

We call underdogs underdogs for a reason, we call favorites favorites for a reason. But some times the underdogs win, that why we play the games.

Sivy · Dec 12, 2007

The difference is tom brady.

godef · Dec 12, 2007

This thread is a little premature, isn't it?

All you've said is that 4 prior high scoring teams didn't win Super Bowls. Is that 512 by the '84 Dolphins the 4th highest figure? In fact, the '99 Rams scored 526 points and DID win the Super Bowl. Why did you omit this little nugget?

And what you don't bother to mention is that those 4 teams also gave up 296, 471, 332 and 298 points respectively, whereas the Patriots are projecting to 273, 23 better than the rest, plus they project to score 63 more than the best of those.

In fact, they threaten to break the all-time point differential record, which would actually distinguish them from all 4 of those teams you listed. But again, this is premature.

The truth is, you dropped partially random examples in this post with the expressed intent of trying to put us in our place. In my book, this is SMACK.

We kicked your crybaby arses last Sunday, and in the process made it clear that the 2007 Steelers aren't quite ready for prime time. Please go away already.

Moderators, please move this to the Visitors Locker Room where it belongs.

Comparing the Best

Practice Squad Player

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Banned

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Practice Squad Player

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Practice Squad Player

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

On the Game Day Roster

In the Starting Line-Up

On the Game Day Roster

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Veteran

On the Game Day Roster

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

In the Starting Line-Up

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

Similar threads