O yee of Little Faith (or Analysis)

[Sicilian]

Ok then please explain to me why the 01 rams are better than the current Broncos.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

is this why they're better.

 

[Ring 6]

Because the stats sheet says so, the broncos can run it better and manning stats sheet is bigger than Brady in 07.

Oh, we are reducing football to statistics. I see.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Oh, we are reducing football to statistics. I see.

Just saying it how it is.

 

[Ring 6]

Just saying it how it is.

No you are reading a statsheet and using that in place of intellect.
Does 16-0 vs 13-3 mean anything to you?

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

No you are reading a statsheet and using that in place of intellect.
Does 16-0 vs 13-3 mean anything to you?

We won a few more games but they scored more points, that's where I based my assessment, that's why the broncos is now considered the greatest offense of all time.

 

[Ring 6]

We won a few more games but they scored more points, that's where I based my assessment, that's why the broncos is now considered the greatest offense of all time.

So winning games is of lower importance than accumulation of statistics over a season?
Winning by 30 instead of 20 but then losing about 20% of the time is better than scoring enough to win every game?
Bizarre outlook you have there.
So what you are saying is if the Patriots in 2007 had left Brady in and kept throwing after leading Miami 42-0 at half time and went for 84, they would have been a better offense?

Also you cited better running game. The difference was 24 yards. The Broncos ran 10 more times for 24 more yards. Is that better?
Mannings additional yards passing also came from throwing 80 more passes. Does that make the offense better?

Again, you are reading stats rather than thinking.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

So winning games is of lower importance than accumulation of statistics over a season?
Winning by 30 instead of 20 but then losing about 20% of the time is better than scoring enough to win every game?
Bizarre outlook you have there.
So what you are saying is if the Patriots in 2007 had left Brady in and kept throwing after leading Miami 42-0 at half time and went for 84, they would have been a better offense?

Also you cited better running game. The difference was 24 yards. The Broncos ran 10 more times for 24 more yards. Is that better?
Mannings additional yards passing also came from throwing 80 more passes. Does that make the offense better?

Again, you are reading stats rather than thinking.

Meh..if Manning stayed in that raiders game he probably score 2 or 3 tds too, and brady came back in that game after cassel played bad, and considering we didn't the superbowl, 16-0 is nothing to be proud of.

 

[Ring 6]

Meh..if Manning stayed in that raiders game he probably score 2 or 3 tds too, and brady came back in that game after cassel played bad, and considering we didn't the superbowl, 16-0 is nothing to be proud of.

How is a 16-0 regular season not something to be more proud of than a 13-3 regular season.

So you ARE saying that adding garbage times scores to wins makes you better than not losing?

Look I know your purpose here is to beat down the Patriots, but seriously, think a little.

 

[Deus Irae]

Meh..if Manning stayed in that raiders game he probably score 2 or 3 tds too, and brady came back in that game after cassel played bad, and considering we didn't the superbowl, 16-0 is nothing to be proud of.

Ok, so you're a troll, and that's pretty clear. The question is, what is your real 'favorite' team?

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

How is a 16-0 regular season not something to be more proud of than a 13-3 regular season.

So you ARE saying that adding garbage times scores to wins makes you better than not losing?

Look I know your purpose here is to beat down the Patriots, but seriously, think a little.

I am saying that Denver score more point so they're slightly better.16-0 doesn't mean much when you don't win the Superbowl. My purpose is to acknowledge that we are fortunate to make it this far but talent shortage is what will prevent us from going all the way,AND that will be the game where our deficiencies catch up to us, especially on the road where our record this season is not so good.

 

[Ring 6]

I am saying that Denver score more point so they're slightly better.

So nothing matters aside from cumulative points scored. An 8-8 team that scored 75 in every win and 10 in every loss would be your idea of the best offense ever. If the Patriots had piled on more points on top of the ones needed to win all 16 games, in your mind those meaningless points would make them a better offense.

Oh and by the way, since the Patriots have scored more points since the middle of the season than the Broncos, does that mean the Patriots have become a better offense than the Broncos or are you only allowed to look at statistics that say what you like?

16-0 doesn't mean much when you don't win the Superbowl

It does when you compare it to 13-3 with no SB.
It does when you are limiting your discussion to the regular season.

. My purpose is to acknowledge that we are fortunate to make it this far

So we didn't deserve our 12 wins, we were fortunate?
We shoudn't be in the AFCCG because we didn't earn the win we had over the Colts? Who deserves to be here instead. What team that has gone home gets your nod as deserving to be here instead of us?

but talent shortage is what will prevent us from going all the way,

we have enough talent to be here. we have enough talent to already have beaten the Broncos once. That must have been painful to you.

AND that will be the game where our deficiencies catch up to us, especially on the road where our record this season is not so good.

We have the 7th best road record in the NFL and 2 of the losses were due to extremely dubious calls. 6-2 is an excellent road record. So are you saying that if the refs had not made the calls that many felt were egregiously wrong, then we would win this week?

By the way, which deficiencies do you think are going to 'catch up with us' and cause us to lose to your Broncos this week?

 

[jmt57]

I am saying that Denver score more point so they're slightly better.

I hope I am not putting words in your mouth, but why is points scored the one and only way of determining which team is better?

Based on that logic the Seattle Seahawks are the NFL's 8th-best team this year, no better than Green Bay and not as good as the Bears, Cowboys or Eagles among others.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

I hope I am not putting words in your mouth, but why is points scored the one and only way of determining which team is better?

Based on that logic the Seattle Seahawks are the NFL's 8th-best team this year, no better than Green Bay and not as good as the Bears, Cowboys or Eagles among others.

Ok then why do people consider the broncos to have the best offense of all time?

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Ok, so you're a troll, and that's pretty clear. The question is, what is your real 'favorite' team?

So if I say this team is too injured on offense and defense to go in Denver where the weather will be soft to beat a man that scored 55 TD I'm not a fan....nice!

 

[Ring 6]

Ok then why do people consider the broncos to have the best offense of all time?

What people?

 

[Ring 6]

So if I say this team is too injured on offense and defense to go in Denver where the weather will be soft to beat a man that scored 55 TD I'm not a fan....nice!

The Broncos are as injured as we are. You keep ignoring that.
We scored more points than them in the second half of the season. You keep ignoring that.
They allowed almost 4 ppg more than we did. You seem to be ignoring that.

 

[lamafist]

Seems to me like there's a lot of cherry-picking on both sides, and inconsistency in the relative value of stats (in the overall argument, though perhaps not by the same person.)

I also think there's a lot of over-valuing of past players for being part of Super Bowl winning teams -- a mistake that lead many NFL GMs to regret over-paying role-players who never amounted to much outside the Patriots organization. Also, many of us are judging players in hindsight based on who they would become, rather than who they were then.

Hell, in 2001 our quarterback was a QB playing in the 15th game in his career, and our left tackle was a rookie considered a reach in the 2nd round, whom half of Patriots fans thought should be benched in favor of Drew Bledsoe.

In 2003, we had rookie Eugene Wilson at free safety, and a hobbled 35 year-old journeyman Roman Phifer. David Patten was on his 3rd team in as many years, and had never caught more than 38 passes in his career.

In 2004, we lost starting corners Ty Law and Tyrone Pooke, and replaced them with Asante Samuel, a 2nd year player projected spend his career in the slot, and Randal Gay, an undrafted rookie. Earthwind Moreland, Je'Rod Cherry and Hank Poteat were playing meaningful snaps in the post-season. Our right tackles was perennial turnstile Brandon Gorin.

Finally, the fact that we know how things turned out makes us forget details and skew our perceptions. Games were lower scoring, and passing numbers a whole lot less gaudy, making our defenses seem better than, and the 2001 Rams seem less impressive than the 2013 Broncos.

Also in 2001, the Rams had a top-ranked defense in addition to their record-setting offense, and in the AFC championship game, the Patriots had just barely eked out a controversial win thanks to the then-unheard of "tuck rule" and two long field-goals in the snow.

In 2003, we had the 30th ranked running game in yards per carry. Our passing game was derided as "dink n' dunk."

In 2004, with our 2ndary shredded over the course of the season, we were considered far bigger underdogs to Manning's offensive-record-setting Colts than we are to Manning's Broncos this year, and in the AFC Championship, we were playing a 17-1 team that had blown us out in the regular season.

So yeah, I don't think it's at all crazy to compare this team favorably to any of our SB teams. There are a lot of reasons to think that, should it go on to win the super bowl, and should our young players turn out to be future stars, it will look even rosier in hindsight.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Seems to me like there's a lot of cherry-picking on both sides, and inconsistency in the relative value of stats (in the overall argument, though perhaps not by the same person.)

I also think there's a lot of over-valuing of past players for being part of Super Bowl winning teams -- a mistake that lead many NFL GMs to regret over-paying role-players who never amounted to much outside the Patriots organization. Also, many of us are judging players in hindsight based on who they would become, rather than who they were then.

Hell, in 2001 our quarterback was a QB playing in the 15th game in his career, and our left tackle was a rookie considered a reach in the 2nd round, whom half of Patriots fans thought should be benched in favor of Drew Bledsoe.

In 2003, we had rookie Eugene Wilson at free safety, and a hobbled 35 year-old journeyman Roman Phifer. David Patten was on his 3rd team in as many years, and had never caught more than 38 passes in his career.
.

David Patten was a big part of the 2001 Pats Championship team and was hurt in 2003. He had 112 catches for 1573 yards and 9 td catches between 2001 & 2002. So 2003 was his THIRD YEAR with the PATS.

 

[chasa]

Ok then why do people consider the broncos to have the best offense of all time?

!!!ProTip!!!​

In the nfl a team is comprised of two things, offense and defense

16-0 in a regular season had never been done before, and has not been done since.

Scoring records, and individual stat records have been dropping like flies as the nfl continues to move towards a high offense setup.

If you dont understand why that makes 16-0 more impressive then scoring the most points in league history(breaking a record that's merely a few years old) then this discussion is a lost cause.

16-0 is better then 13-3 people will always remember when the patriots went 16-0, 10 years from now nobody will even care how many points the broncos scored this season because that number is likely to be shattered next year.