Prediction: This team will be more dominant than 2007

[rabthepat]

Nope....this is the same old team as last year...just winning the division will be a major accomplishment.

 

[JackBauer]

Nope....this is the same old team as last year...just winning the division will be a major accomplishment.

You mean that same old team that, erm, won the division last year?

 

[RayClay]

This has been gone over ad nauseum. Your inability to grasp the simple reality that even the best teams usually lose games is a failing on your part, not on the part of the 2007 Patriots. In NFL history, only one team has gone undefeated, and that was with a shorter schedule. The 2007 Patriots went 18-1 and scored more points than any team in NFL history. The points differential was:

2007:
315 (589-274)

2004:
177 (437-260)

2003:
110 (348-238)


Even the amazingly dominant 1985 Bears team lost a game. It also had less of a point differential:
258 (456-198)

So, it doesn't matter if you play your best in the beginning of the season or the end?

-----

The Bears certainly didn't lose the last game.

 

[jah]

Uh, exactly WHAT area are the 2010 Patriots better at than the 2007 Patriots?

Tight Ends
Punter

???

And the defense isn't even close...

2007: Richard Seymour / Ty Warren / Vince Wilfork
2010: Gerard Warren / Mike Wright / Vince Wilfork

2007: Mike Vrabel / Tedy Bruschi / Adalius Thomas / Rosevelt Colvin
2010: Gary Guton / Derrick Burgess / Tully Banta-Cain / Jerod Mayo

2007: Asante Samuel / Ellis Hobbs
2010: Darius Butler / Leigh Bodden

2007: Rodney Harrison / James Sanders
2010: Brandon Meriweather / Brandon McGowan

I've always had a feeling that this season would be a very good one, but the roster comparison doesn't support it. Also, Burgess and McGowan won't start.

 

[Halifax_Pats_Fan]

no...no they won't

 

[SHOWTIME15]

The more I think about the refreshed receiving corps, our TE situation, the resurgent running game, the more balanced play-calling, the promise of a young defense that has some real talent and - dare I say it - discipline/leadership...

Couple that with a very fired up Brady, Moss and Welker trio...

I think people are starting to think it, but very few really want to say it, so I'm saying it: this squad is going to be even better than 2007.

:rocker:

we have one of the hardest schedules in the league this year. Jet (2x), Colts, Pitt, San Diego, Minn, GB, Baltimore, Cincy, etc. I would be happy with 11-5.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I don't think so. But it is better than the 2009 edition, which had all the drawbacks and weaknesses of this edition bu did not thave the cures and additional talent that this team has.

That team had Watson and somebody at TE.
This team has Crumpler and the rookies Hernadez and Gronkowski. That is an improvement.

That team had an injured Fred Taylor, and injured Sammy Morris as well as Maroney, Faulk and BJGE. This year has all five healthy.

That team had a new hole in the Seymour trade. Warren was dinged all year. This team has added two former first round DLs and years experience of other youngsters, while the dinged Warren is now on IR. That is a a pick'em.

That Team had only two Receivers in Welker and Moss; both were injured.
This team gets Tate back, Edelman is no longer a rookie, the TEs are new Price looks like a keeper and both Welker and Moss are back and healthy. That is an improvement.

That team had Brady coming back from a knee injury and a raw rookie backing him up. This team has a confident, fully healthy Brady and a maturing Hoyer who is now recognized as a "find" and a competent backup.

That Team had Mankins and a dinged Neal plus a rookie in Volmer at Tackle. This team has no Mankins but an experienced Volmer and Connolly, as well as some maturity for Ohrnberger, Bussey, Guiacuic, Okinnata, etc.
This is a pick'em.

That team had a dinged Mayo and a UDFA at ILB this team has healthy Mayo and Spikes, along with MacKenzie and Guyton. That's an improvement.

That team had an injured Springs and a rookie in Butler and a dinged Wheatly. This Team has a rookie McCourty and experienced Butler and healthy Wheatly. That is an improvement.

That team had a Rodney retire, and McGowan. This has an experienced Chung and Meriwether along with McGowan and Sanders. This is an improvement.

That Team had a 10-6 record. This improved Team should have a 10+ & 6- record. That is an improvement.

 

[Kontradiction]

Uh, exactly WHAT area are the 2010 Patriots better at than the 2007 Patriots?

Tight Ends
Punter

???

And the defense isn't even close...

2007: Richard Seymour / Ty Warren / Vince Wilfork
2010: Gerard Warren / Mike Wright / Vince Wilfork

2007: Mike Vrabel / Tedy Bruschi / Adalius Thomas / Rosevelt Colvin
2010: Gary Guton / Derrick Burgess / Tully Banta-Cain / Jerod Mayo

2007: Asante Samuel / Ellis Hobbs
2010: Darius Butler / Leigh Bodden

2007: Rodney Harrison / James Sanders
2010: Brandon Meriweather / Brandon McGowan

If you're going to be pessimistic just for the hell of it, a good first step would be making sure that you have the starting line-up correct.

 

[Deus Irae]

So, it doesn't matter if you play your best in the beginning of the season or the end?

-----

The Bears certainly didn't lose the last game.

Why do you keep making silly arguments on this topic? The team only lost one game all season. It was the Super Bowl, with the QB hobbled, the TEs injured, Neal injured, Hobbs injured, and with a missed INT, a blown coverage, a fluke helmet catch and a holding call that wasn't made, and it was a 3 point loss.

This "play your best...." stuff is nonsense.

 

[Nikolai]

If you're going to be pessimistic just for the hell of it, a good first step would be making sure that you have the starting line-up correct.

But that works against his argument!

 

[Patspsycho]

I've heard great things. I think I'm going to open a Blockbuster account today to rent it. I saw the beginning of the second one where a Middle Eastern guy walks through the airport metal detector with a bazooka and then an old lady walks through behind him and sets it off then gets pummeled by security for it. Never saw the first one though.

Dude, blockbuster is so yesterday. Get Netflix, and you could probably watch it right now via streaming.

 

[RayClay]

Why do you keep making silly arguments on this topic? The team only lost one game all season. It was the Super Bowl, with the QB hobbled, the TEs injured, Neal injured, Hobbs injured, and with a missed INT, a blown coverage, a fluke helmet catch and a holding call that wasn't made, and it was a 3 point loss.

This "play your best...." stuff is nonsense.

Because, you think only caring about winning it all is silly, while I think obsessing over a hot QB - WR combination that puts up a lot of meaningless numbers in blowouts and can't get it done when it counts is silly.

Ifs and buts, candy and nuts...

Whether it's the greatest show on turf, most of Peyton Manning's campaigns, or the career of Dan Fouts, it's called fantasy football, and it is for a reason.

It's a different game than the real football of Lombardi, Noll etc.

 

[Deus Irae]

Because, you think only caring about winning it all is silly, while I think obsessing over a hot QB - WR combination that puts up a lot of meaningless numbers in blowouts and can't get it done when it counts is silly.

Ifs and buts, candy and nuts...

Not really. You're wrong on the issue, and you've been wrong since the first time you started pouting about it. The notion that the QB-WR combo couldn't get it done when it counted is just asinine, given that said combo brought the team from behind in that Super Bowl and take the lead with 2:45 left. The offense didn't play well that game, but the team still had a chance to win.

It didn't lose by 14 like the 2004 Patriots and the 1985 Bears, or 31 like the 2003 Patriots. It lost by 3.

Whether it's the greatest show on turf, most of Peyton Manning's campaigns, or the career of Dan Fouts, it's called fantasy football, and it is for a reason.

It's a different game than the real football of Lombardi, Noll etc.

The "real football of Lombardi, Noll, etc." still has the 2007 New England Patriots as the most dominant team of the Super Bowl era. Your inability to unbunch your panties about the only loss in an 18-1 season doesn't change that.

 

[emoney_33]

Because, you think only caring about winning it all is silly, while I think obsessing over a hot QB - WR combination that puts up a lot of meaningless numbers in blowouts and can't get it done when it counts is silly.

Ifs and buts, candy and nuts...

Do you ever get tired of those tired old ridiculous circular arguments? That is the type of argument one should grow out of after elementary school. Please step into the real world. There is no such thing as a team that is just so good that it has to win, and not a damn thing can stop them. There is and always will be a certain factor of luck in every game of every season... forever. The 2007 Patriots were the best team the NFL has ever seen.

Whether it's the greatest show on turf, most of Peyton Manning's campaigns, or the career of Dan Fouts, it's called fantasy football, and it is for a reason.

It's a different game than the real football of Lombardi, Noll etc.

None of that is called fantasy football... what on earth are you talking about.

 

[RayClay]

There is no such thing as a team that is just so good that it has to win, and not a damn thing can stop them. There is and always will be a certain factor of luck in every game of every season... forever.

Russell's Final Championship

They were old; Russell at 36 was player\coach and going 42 minutes a night competing with growing number of taller more skilled players that had begun emerging around the NBA. Sam Jones was 35 and had decided to hang it up at the end of the season as well. Bailey Howell was 32 and having his last good season. Satch Sanders was in his 30's too and his skills had faded noticeably. In fact every player in the regular rotation was at least 28 and only Havlicek was still performing at his prime level after 1969.

After a fast start for the defending Champions, The Celtics would struggle down the stretch of the season; They go 28-27 to close the year and their age would continue to show itself. Jones would go to the bench because of his struggles and Russell was openly critical of his own play saying at one point "If there was anyone who wanted me, I'd trade myself for a good young center".

They finished fourth in the east out of seven teams, the last to earn a playoff birth. In the first round they'd meet a 55 win Philadelphia 76ers team, the only franchise to defeat the Celtics in a series during the decade. The Sixers were heavy favorites, but the Celtics were not deterred. Bill set the tone in game one with a 11 point 27 rebound 12 block 7 assist performance. Russell continues to rally the troops and the Celtics took the first three games of the best of seven by a combined 52 points. The Sixers stole game four in Boston, but were finished off in the fifth game by a another sterling defensive performance from Boston.

The Conference Finals posed an even more daunting challenge as the Up and Coming New York Knickerbockers awaited them. The Knicks had taken 6 of 7 games from Boston during the regular season and featured a hall of fame stuffed roster that even Boston fans were envious of. Walt Frazier, Willis Reed, Dave Debuscherre, Bill Bradley, **** Barnett, Cazzie Russell and Walt Bellamy made up the Knicks top seven rotation and seemed way to much for the aging Celtics to contend with.

Somehow the Celtics were up to the task. They stunned New York in game one at the Garden and took all three home games to win the series in six.

In the Finals Boston would face it's stiffest competition. The Lakers had been their greatest rival in the 60's. The two teams had meet in five of the last seven finals and the Celtics had won them all. The other two times Boston faced San Fransisco and Philadelphia in their final playoff series, both had Chamberlain and in '67 the 76ers defeated Boston. Now Los Angeles had traded for Chamberlain and he joined Jerry West and Elgin Baylor to give the Lakers what was sure to be an unstoppable trio and at last a Championship...

http://www.nbadimensions.net/forums...ective-1969-boston-celtics-final-chapter.html

 

[alvinnf]

2007 wasn't dominant. Dominance is being able to run the ball against someones will. Good record and great year. Flawed team..... The 04 Pats would have beat that team..... By 10.

 

[mgteich]

The last I checked, the 1985 Bears played in a Super Bowl. They were a much more dominant team than the 2007 Patriots. I do agree with the rest of your comments.

The "real football of Lombardi, Noll, etc." still has the 2007 New England Patriots as the most dominant team of the Super Bowl era. Your inability to unbunch your panties about the only loss in an 18-1 season doesn't change that.

 

[Deus Irae]

The last I checked, the 1985 Bears played in a Super Bowl. They were a much more dominant team than the 2007 Patriots. I do agree with the rest of your comments.

I know that the 1985 Bears played in a Super Bowl, and I don't recall posting otherwise. However, they were not as dominant as the 2007 Patriots. What you've got here is the highest scoring offense of all time, the Patriots, and one of the stingiest defenses of all time, the Bears. Both teams spent the season crushing a lot of their opponents. Both teams had just 1 loss in the season, with the Patriots' loss coming at the worse time, obviously.

Number of regular season games won by 10 points or more:

2007 Patriots - 12
1985 Bears - 11

Average Margin of Victory:
2007 Patriots - 19.7
1985 Bears - 16.1

The Bears defense was tremendous in the playoffs, and the Bears were more dominant during those playoffs, but they also played teams that weren't playing as well heading into the playoffs as the teams the Patriots faced.

10-6 Giants who went just 3-3 to end the season
11-5 Rams who went just 3-4 to end the season
11-5 Patriots, who were actually on a monster tear (9-2) until the Super Bowl

The Patriots, meanwhile, faced off against

11-5 Jaguars who went 6-2 in the second half of the year.
11-5 Chargers who went 7-1 to end the year, including 6 straight wins
10-6 Giants, who were arguably the weakest opponent the Patriots faced in the playoffs, but who had still won 3 of their last 5 games, with one of the two losses coming against the Patriots to end the season.


Not surprisingly, given that both teams went 18-1, you're looking at two very dominant teams. The Patriots were just a bit more dominant, with the offense providing the difference.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

I know that the 1985 Bears played in a Super Bowl, and I don't recall posting otherwise. However, they were not as dominant as the 2007 Patriots. What you've got here is the highest scoring offense of all time, the Patriots, and one of the stingiest defenses of all time, the Bears. Both teams spent the season crushing a lot of their opponents. Both teams had just 1 loss in the season, with the Patriots' loss coming at the worse time, obviously.

Number of regular season games won by 10 points or more:

2007 Patriots - 12
1985 Bears - 11

Average Margin of Victory:
2007 Patriots - 19.7
1985 Bears - 16.1

The Bears defense was tremendous in the playoffs, and the Bears were more dominant during those playoffs, but they also played teams that weren't playing as well heading into the playoffs as the teams the Patriots faced.

10-6 Giants who went just 3-3 to end the season
11-5 Rams who went just 3-4 to end the season
11-5 Patriots, who were actually on a monster tear (9-2) until the Super Bowl

The Patriots, meanwhile, faced off against

11-5 Jaguars who went 6-2 in the second half of the year.
11-5 Chargers who went 7-1 to end the year, including 6 straight wins
10-6 Giants, who were arguably the weakest opponent the Patriots faced in the playoffs, but who had still won 3 of their last 5 games, with one of the two losses coming against the Patriots to end the season.


Not surprisingly, given that both teams went 18-1, you're looking at two very dominant teams. The Patriots were just a bit more dominant, with the offense providing the difference.

While the Pats and Bears were probably a slight bit better than them...there was,and will probably never be a more dominant playoff team in NFL history than the 1989 49ers...there wasn't a team in the NFL that could have stayed with them in a playoff game that year.

126 points scored to 26 points allowed in 3 playoff games is just not beatable.

 

[Deus Irae]

While the Pats and Bears were probably a slight bit better than them...there was,and will probably never be a more dominant playoff team in NFL history than the 1989 49ers...there wasn't a team in the NFL that could have stayed with them in a playoff game that year.

126 points scored to 26 points allowed in 3 playoff games is just not beatable.

The 49ers 1984 team was tremendous, and dominant, too. It was a bit more uneven than the others we're mentioning here, with fewer double digit victories than the Bears or Patriots in the regular season, but it was #1 on both offense and defense, and it did manage a 15.5 ppg differential.