Football Outsiders: Turns out that in the "Year Of No Great Team..."

[jimnance]

This team is god but 04 would smock it no question. 04 was a great team and true wagon.

This team is good but it is not a great team/wagon. When it wins and i think it will it will be a solid super bowl winning team.

If i were to compare teams that won a super with this team as of now I'd rank them 04' > 14' > 16' > 03' > 01'.

NO freakin way. You really think the '04 team would "smack down" this team? Totally disagree.


Look, I love that '04 team. Right now, theyre the #1 Pats team all-time,imo. But if THIS team wins the SB, 2016 will be hands-down the greatest Pats team of all time.The '04 team needed a last-second fg to beat a not-great panthers team. Both the '16 cowboys and '16 packers are better than that panthers team. And i believe, if thers no key injuries(knock on wood), the Pats will beat either of those teams comfortably. And I believe they would beat the'04 team.

First, '16 has a better qb, better ol, better te, better wrs and a better rb GROUP.(tho dillon was better by himself than any of this group).
The defenses are about the same-both excellent, both arguably the best in the nfl.
Sts pretty equal.
BOTH teams are extremely physical and tough.
Of course this team needs to win the SB. If they do, im puttin them #1. I agree with your other rankings, id put 04 next,then,14,03 and 01.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

Someone be sure to send this article to One Patriot Place.

 

[mosslost]

IMO there was no great team this year. It depends what you mean by great though. It is not just how you rank with the rest of the league this is it is about more eye test and where your team ranks all time. However judging teams in different years against each other isn't an exact science.

How I rank teams top teams.

#1 All time teams. Teams I call all time teams are teams you could make a legit argument for being the best team ever. Very few cases of these teams exist and very very few i could make for salary cap era teams.

#2 Great Teams aka "wagons". Though not an all time team this kind of team is fairly rare these days in that it looks particularly strong and dynamic. Before salary cap they were more common but since the salary cap there have been maybe 10 or so true wagon teams.

#3 Superbowl winning caliber teams. Do they look like a team that is worthy of winning a super bowl? Take out the competition and just look at a team and ask that.

#4 A team that can win due to luck and bad competition. These are usually teams that don't win but in rare circumstances win. They are in the mix maybe a bit more than others but are super fortunate to win and usually forgotten quickly and it leaves a bit of a stain on the NFL as it means the product look bad when it happens. Luckily it is rare. Also "getting hot" does not equate to this. Those are 2 different things.

I would put this Pats team in the 3rd category. The Cowboys too but it is lower than the Pats in it.

Did you make up this 4 tier ranking system yourself? Good for you if so.. but I think you are a little off..

First of all, I would argue that MANY of the Greatest teams of all time have existed in the salary cap era, and all around talent is way better than it has been in the past.

Second, using your own rankings, I would call the Pats a "Wagon" for sure. I'm not totally sure about number 4. You differentiate between this grouping number 4 and "just getting hot". I would have to say that any of those teams who won it like that had been hot.

 

[BradyFTW!]

The 2016 Pats are an incredibly well -rounded team.

They pass the ball well
They pass block well
They run the ball well.
The run block well.
WRs are good
TEs are good.
They stop the run
They get decent pressure on the QB (stats support this)
Pass defense is good
They are good in punt and kick coverage
They are good at punting and FG kicking
Remove Cyrus Jones and add a healthy DA or JE and the punt/kick return game is good.
Elite coaching

They are solid up and down.

A Super Bowl win will put this team in its proper place.

That's exactly it. This is the most versatile team we've had in a while. 2014 is the only recent Pats team that you could make an argument for, and even that's mostly because Gronk stayed healthy and we had Revis.

Mike Lombardi talks about a lot of stuff on Bill Simmons' podcasts, but one of the more interesting points he's brought up a few times is that building a WR corps or a secondary is a lot like a basketball team: you want different players for different roles and individual matchups, so that you can make a week-to-week choice about which areas of the field and matchups you want to attack, and in the process can either defend the entire field or make the other team defend the entire field.

For the first time in years, the Pats can do that, They can't do what Gronk did as well as Gronk could do it, but they can still do it credibly with Bennett, and in every other phase they're better.

 

[BobDigital]

Did you make up this 4 tier ranking system yourself? Good for you if so.. but I think you are a little off..

First of all, I would argue that MANY of the Greatest teams of all time have existed in the salary cap era, and all around talent is way better than it has been in the past.

Second, using your own rankings, I would call the Pats a "Wagon" for sure. I'm not totally sure about number 4. You differentiate between this grouping number 4 and "just getting hot". I would have to say that any of those teams who won it like that had been hot.

Yes i made it up myself. Just something i figured be a nice clean way to separate teams at the top. Well when i said "getting hot" I am talking about playing up to your potential when you took it easy all year as opposed to winning in a weak year with luck like the 2006 Colts did for instance. Faced a weak field and caught breaks. I see a difference between them and the 2007 Giants which had legit talent that really turned it on.

If you disagree that is fine.

 

[RobertWeathers]

That's exactly it. This is the most versatile team we've had in a while. 2014 is the only recent Pats team that you could make an argument for, and even that's mostly because Gronk stayed healthy and we had Revis.

Mike Lombardi talks about a lot of stuff on Bill Simmons' podcasts, but one of the more interesting points he's brought up a few times is that building a WR corps or a secondary is a lot like a basketball team: you want different players for different roles and individual matchups, so that you can make a week-to-week choice about which areas of the field and matchups you want to attack, and in the process can either defend the entire field or make the other team defend the entire field.

For the first time in years, the Pats can do that, They can't do what Gronk did as well as Gronk could do it, but they can still do it credibly with Bennett, and in every other phase they're better.

It all goes back to talent identification, coaching and developing quality depth. If your rock stars like Revis, Brady, Gronk, JE11, Vollmer go down, you have players like Malcolm, Jimmy, Marty, Hogan and Cannon step up and barely miss a beat.

98% of the teams out there those are crushing blows.

 

[jimnance]

I love that '14 team. One of my all-time favorite teams. But this 2016 team is better imo on BOTH sides of the ball. Thats providing they win the SB. One thing both those teams have in common tho is that theyre gritty and tough. Something the Pats didnt have enough of from 2007-2013. The 2014-16 teams are more reminiscent of the 2003 and 2004 teams.

 

[FourierSeries]

The 14 team wasn't better than the 03 team. 03 team is up there with the 04 team. If the 16 team wins the SB, I'd still put it behind 04 and 03, but definitely ahead of 14.

 

[fnordcircle]

If you put Seahawks or Packers or Colts jerseys on this Patriots team the media would be fawning all over them.

It's the curse of being so good for so long that only beating a bunch of teams by 2 scores is viewed as pedestrian when the Patriots do it.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Call me unimpressed with this statistical analysis. The 7-9 Eagles finished ahead of the 12-4 Chiefs. The 9-7 Texans finished behind the 2-14 49ers. When you get results like that, your statistical analysis needs to be thrown out because it sucks.

One quirk about Philly was Lane johnson's suspension. He played three or four games they went 3-1 and then was suspended for 10 and came back for the last two that they won and the offensive line looked totally different. Had he not been suspended, I think they would have won a few more games and that difference from KC wouldn't have seemed so weird...

 

[NashuaPats]

I'm not going to argue the merits of their statistical analysis but I don't think that having a few significant individual ranking deviations from actual w/l records is any reason to discredit their methodology....especially when considering the small sample size of the 16 game season.

Agree to disagree. They analyze every single play over 16 games, so I don't think that's a small sample size. When you have a 7-9 team ahead of a 12-4 team and a 2-14 team ahead of a 9-7 team in the same analysis, the analysis has failed.

 

[NashuaPats]

One quirk about Philly was Lane johnson's suspension. He played three or four games they went 3-1 and then was suspended for 10 and came back for the last two that they won and the offensive line looked totally different. Had he not been suspended, I think they would have won a few more games and that difference from KC wouldn't have seemed so weird...

His not playing ten games would be reflected in the results of the statistical analysis. This was a quantitative not qualitative analysis.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I love that '14 team. One of my all-time favorite teams. But this 2016 team is better imo on BOTH sides of the ball. Thats providing they win the SB. One thing both those teams have in common tho is that theyre gritty and tough. Something the Pats didnt have enough of from 2007-2013. The 2014-16 teams are more reminiscent of the 2003 and 2004 teams.

I dunno about that, I think it's a really tough sell to claim that the 2016 defense is better than 2014. The CBs and LBs were definitely better in '14, and you could make a case that the DEs were as well, depending on how you feel about top-of-rotation quality vs. depth. Personally I'd take the '14 DEs, although it's close and it's basically tipped by Ninkovich being significantly better in '14 than '16. Meanwhile, the only position where I think we've improved over the last two years on D is DT, and that's also very close. I think Branch has elevated his play this year enough to tip it, but not nearly enough to account for the '14 Pats' superiority at LB and CB.

 

[jimnance]

I dunno about that, I think it's a really tough sell to claim that the 2016 defense is better than 2014. The CBs and LBs were definitely better in '14, and you could make a case that the DEs were as well, depending on how you feel about top-of-rotation quality vs. depth. Personally I'd take the '14 DEs, although it's close and it's basically tipped by Ninkovich being significantly better in '14 than '16. Meanwhile, the only position where I think we've improved over the last two years on D is DT, and that's also very close. I think Branch has elevated his play this year enough to tip it, but not nearly enough to account for the '14 Pats' superiority at LB and CB.

The 2014'CBS were not better than 2016. Butler this year>revis. Rowe right now better than browner. Ryan pretty close to rookie butler. But there's no comparison on the D's. 2016 D is superior to 2014 in all the most important statistical categories: pts allowed, 3rd down, red zone and turnovers. Those are BY FAR the 4 most important D stats. Pats are among the NFL leaders in all 4

 

[luuked]

Denver would have had a great Team if they had a QB and RB to support that Great D.

Denver has a great passing defense but can't stop the run. I wouldn't call that a "great D" but whatever..

 

[jimnance]

Denver has a great passing defense but can't stop the run. I wouldn't call that a "great D" but whatever..

I assumed he was being sarcastic. Pats D was handsdown better than Denver's d this year.

 

[luuked]

I assumed he was being sarcastic. Pats D was handsdown better than Denver's d this year.

I honestly don't know. People are still eating up that "historic" defense crap that we have been hearing about Denver in the last 2-3 years. The only reason they made the playoffs last year was opponents gifting them turnovers at the end of games / choking games away. When they stopped getting those turnovers consistently this year they were dead in the water. But people like their narratives and hyperboles.. makes everything that happens seem more magical and important.

 

[stinkypete]

Look, I love that '04 team. Right now, theyre the #1 Pats team all-time,imo. But if THIS team wins the SB, 2016 will be hands-down the greatest Pats team of all time.The '04 team needed a last-second fg to beat a not-great panthers team. Both the '16 cowboys and '16 packers are better than that panthers team. And i believe, if thers no key injuries(knock on wood), the Pats will beat either of those teams comfortably. And I believe they would beat the'04 team.

First, '16 has a better qb, better ol, better te, better wrs and a better rb GROUP.(tho dillon was better by himself than any of this group).
The defenses are about the same-both excellent, both arguably the best in the nfl.
Sts pretty equal.
BOTH teams are extremely physical and tough.
Of course this team needs to win the SB. If they do, im puttin them #1. I agree with your other rankings, id put 04 next,then,14,03 and 01.

You have your years mixed up. The '03 team needed a last second FG to beat the Panthers. The '04 team shut down Indy's historic offense, blew out a 15 - 1 Steelers team in Pittsburgh, and won convincingly against a very strong Philly team.

I'd rate this team above the '14 team if they win the SB. The defense has played better down the stretch and had little versatility compared with the current group. They also folded in the playoffs against Baltimore and Seattle and needed Brady to bail them out. The 2016 offense is significantly more diverse as well.

That '04 team though. I don't care if they lined up Chris Canty and Duane Starks at CB, that front 7 along with Harrison and Wilson was nearly unstoppable, and the offense similarly diverse.

 

[jimnance]

You have your years mixed up. The '03 team needed a last second FG to beat the Panthers. The '04 team shut down Indy's historic offense, blew out a 15 - 1 Steelers team in Pittsburgh, and won convincingly against a very strong Philly team.

I'd rate this team above the '14 team if they win the SB. The defense has played better down the stretch and had little versatility compared with the current group. They also folded in the playoffs against Baltimore and Seattle and needed Brady to bail them out. The 2016 offense is significantly more diverse as well.

That '04 team though. I don't care if they lined up Chris Canty and Duane Starks at CB, that front 7 along with Harrison and Wilson was nearly unstoppable, and the offense similarly diverse.

Yeah kept thinking we were talking about the 03 team. I'll blame it on stress and old age. But even so, if this team wins SB, I'm putting em #1. And Philly wasn't all that great in 04. The AFC playoffs were tougher than the SB. And we all know if Brady doesn't miss 4 games this team is 15-1. So 18-1 would be best record for a Pats SB Champ ever.