ranks Top 10 offenses in NFL history -- 2007 Pats are not #1

Discussion in ' - Patriots Fan Forum' started by KontradictioN, Jun 14, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. aurakilla

    aurakilla Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    according to the video that is all that mattered. Were only having this discussion because f***** up the totals for the 07 pats.
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2009
  2. efin98

    efin98 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    I know we are also talking about the messed up stats but they are also off on the teams winning. Only two won the Super Bowl or NFL Championship(since two pre-Super Bowl teams are included).

    Hell the '87 49ers and '04 Colts lost in the divisional round and the '81 Chargers and '98 Vikings never made it to the Super Bowl and the '07 Patriots, '83 Redskins, '84 Dolphins lost the Super Bowl(Patriots only one that acutally came close to winning) and '50 Rams lost in the NFL Championship.

    What's really funny is that we aren't the only ones saying it's due to Martz and Faulk being on the show- I'm reading a Vikings message board and they are ripping up the list too...for the same bias. They have their own bias in favor of the Vikings but it's there.
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2009
  3. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    The bias is what is stupid, each fan base obsessing over stats and making up excuses for their team's failures. What you just saw on that Vikings board is probably similar to what Colts fans are saying too.

    As for that list, it is definitely flawed. If they're not going to care about rings, then they left out some other dynamic offenses, like the early 90's Bills offense or the old Houston Oilers offense. I also think if it was just purely yards and points based, then it should be based on something like a 3-year average or another period tracking a longer body of work, instead of just a single season.

    To use a baseball analogy, one likely wouldn't make a list of best all-time home run hitters or just hitters based on a single season.
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2009
  4. PatsFanSince74

    PatsFanSince74 Supporter Supporter

    thanks. the nfl network cooked the books.
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2009
  5. Clonamery

    Clonamery Supporter Supporter

    Do you ever know what you are going to say when you say it? Are you actually Marshall Faulk?
  6. aurakilla

    aurakilla Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    the 1998 Vikings offense was better then the 1999 rams offense

    The Vikings' high-powered offense set a record, which stood until the 2007 season, for most points scored in a season with 556. They eclipsed the 1983 Washington Redskins, who scored 541. The 2007 New England Patriots beat the record by scoring 589 points.

    unless wikipedias wrong?

    so i guess marshall did fk with that list
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2009
  7. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    This supports the argument that without a ring, nobody gives a sh*t.
  8. Clonamery

    Clonamery Supporter Supporter

    Hello Nobody.
  9. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    It's not that hard to follow. It's a very simple argument that you're refusing to follow, because it goes against your completely biased view that the 07 Pats team is the best offense ever, a similar viewpoint from what Colts and Vikings homers are whining about as well.
  10. aurakilla

    aurakilla Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    then why isnt #10 #2?

    no 1 is saying they were the best TEAM ever, but they were highest scoreing offence thus far in history
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2009
  11. KontradictioN

    KontradictioN Do you even lift? Supporter

    No Jersey Selected

    Let me put this in big, bold letters so some of us can understand...

    When trying to decide the greatest SINGLE UNIT in NFL history, Super Bowls should not be counted because it takes both units to play at a high level in order to acheive that victory. Greatest single units should be decided by the stats, no matter if "everyone" remembers them or not.
  12. WelshPat

    WelshPat Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    First of all, the 2000 rams were a better offense than the 1999 version. Its just that 2000 Rams D was BRUTAL

    Lets look at the offences player for player:


    Faulk>>>>>>>>>The pats tandem of RB

    Bruce and Holt>> Moss and Welker (Moss is the best of the 4, but WW is not as good as Bruce or Holt... thats not even close)


    Im not going to pretend to know which team had the better interior O-line. I would say Watson is better than the Rams TE but he was used mainly for blocking in MM scheme.

    Player for player, the rams are better, it's just that the Brady/Moss combo closes the gap. If you were to combine the two, there would be more Rams players, no doubt.
  13. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae Retired Jersey Club Supporter

    Disable Jersey

    I'm with you on this. Some threads and posters really should be subjected to the Chiefsplanet treatment.
  14. upstater1

    upstater1 Pro Bowl Player

    This makes no sense.

    Offenses don't win Super Bowls, teams win Super Bowls. If an offense averages 45 points a game, and their defense allows 46 points a game, that still makes that offense the best ever.
  15. glm

    glm Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Having a horrible offensive line coukdn't have been a huge factor . . . ?

    Didn't Dan Marino have a good offensive line?

    What would happen if many people thought Barry was top 3 all time?

    I thought the whole objective of offense was to score points. Isn't that what champions do?

    Would we have argued that the 2007 Pats is the best offense ever before 2007? :confused:
  16. PatsFanSince74

    PatsFanSince74 Supporter Supporter

    The only winner here is the NFL Network, which apparently stirred up discussion on multiple fan boards. The more I think about it and after being suckered by the false stats in the initial clip, I think that the question itself is bogus.

    A team could have a great offense, but it's D could be weaker and so its W-L and Playoff records could be skewed. Also, a team with an all-time great Offense could play a schedule in which it faces teams with very strong D's, while a team with a lesser Offense could play weaker D's and put up bigger numbers. In addition, teams have played under very different rules over the last 50 years. So, a team that played when a D could do everything but murder a receiver downfield and mug the quarterback to boot would be at a disadvantage to teams that play under today's rules.

    The hypothetical way to resolve this is on the basis not of raw stats, but of stats adjusted for the relative strength of a team's own D, the relative strength of the D's against which it played and the rulebook at the time it played. To me, that would be a gigantic waste of time and would still yield a contested result.

    So, we're left with the Offensive stats, year by year. Add em up: Total Yards, Average Yards per game, Total TD's and Average TD's per game. As far as I can see, that puts the 2007 Pats at the top of the list.

    The bottom line, for me, is that NFL teams are still measured by one ruler: the number of championships won. That puts the Belichick/Brady Pats, Offense and Defense, among the three or four greatest teams of all time. If they add one more Lombardi in this post cap and free agency era, there is no dispute that they represent the greatest team ever, on both sides of the ball.
  17. godef

    godef In the Starting Line-Up

    Actually, even though the Patriots scored the most regular season points in the regular season, the best average points scored per game was achieved by the 1950's LA Rams who scored 466 points in 12 games for an average of 38.8.

    Although the 07 Pats did not win it all, their overall record was better than the 09 Rams (18-1 vs 16-3), and though they won the Super Bowl, they weren't exactly lights out offensively in the postseason.

    I'd think one would have to consider how efficient the Patriots offense was. Any one remember talking about the outrageous percentages in TD's scored when starting from such-and-such yard line that year? Was there ever any offense that was machine-like as the 07 Pats?
  18. BradyFTW!

    BradyFTW! Supporter Supporter

    #12 Jersey

    Right, so if the argument was for best team, that would actually matter. If you're going to make a list of the best offenses, though, then you have to discount for the fact that some of those offenses were paired with crappy defenses that collapsed when it mattered. The '98 Vikings being a prime example.

    Once again, that team scored more than enough to win the game. It was the defense (30 points to Chris Chandler's Falcons? Really?) and the ST (Gary Anderson's first missed field goal of the season) that choked it away.

    If you're trying to list the best offenses, then you can't hold them accountable for the screwups of the defense and ST. This is such a simple concept that I'm legitimately surprised that i have to explain it at length.

    FWIW, if I was making my list, the '98 Vikings and '07 Pats would be 1 and 2, and I'm not sure who would be #1. They had ridiculous talent at WR (Moss, Carter, Reed) that probably edges ours out on the strength of Reed > Gaffney. Robert Smith was better than any of our RBs, and actually stayed healthy in '98. Brady is obviously a huge upgrade over Randall Cunningham though, although Cunningham was first-team allpro that year.
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2009
  19. KontradictioN

    KontradictioN Do you even lift? Supporter

    No Jersey Selected

    Now you're being reasonable. Though, I gotta admit, that second paragraph made my head spin. :eek:
  20. VJCPatriot

    VJCPatriot Pro Bowl Player

    Weird. Someone definitely messed up on their stats then. If that's the case, it looks like the Pats offense should be ranked #1. But I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. This has about as much meaning as a 'power poll'.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page