Prediction: This team will be more dominant than 2007

[emoney_33]

Russell's Final Championship

NBA Champions Retrospective - 1969 Boston Celtics: The Final Chapter

Yeah, because it happened means that it was meant to happen. Way to use an end-result to prove that the result was inevitable (or even likely).

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

Are we sure the OP isn't a Jets fan who got confused about what forum he was on?

 

[DaedalusX]

Are we sure the OP isn't a Jets fan who got confused about what forum he was on?

Uncalled for. I'll have you know that at the Baltimore - Patriots game in 2007, I was at the 50 yard line 3 rows up on the Patriots sideline in 10 F weather, 30 mph wind and insane Ravens fans for the entire game. Wearing my Tom Brady Jersey and Pats cap.

Shove it.

 

[RayClay]

Yeah, because it happened means that it was meant to happen. Way to use an end-result to prove that the result was inevitable (or even likely).

Meant to happen? What does that mean?

They came in fourth place and faced all teams that were younger, talented and favored.

They made it happen. That's what dominance is.

Are you saying they got lucky 11 times with Russell?

 

[emoney_33]

Meant to happen? What does that mean?

They came in fourth place and faced all teams that were younger, talented and favored.

They made it happen. That's what dominance is.

Are you saying they got lucky 11 times with Russell?

You are going far off on some tangent to prove the 2007 Patriots were "not dominant" because they didn't happen to win the last game.

Yes Russell's celtics were dominant, but that's a different sport in a different era so I don't see what your point is? And obviously luck plays LESS of a factor in 5 and 7 game series than in a 1 game playoff. In any event, you are defining "dominant" as winning the title and then trying to make parallels across sports with differing factors.

The 2007 Patriots were one of, if not the most dominant team in NFL history. A slew of different factors prevented them from winning that last game, but that doesn't change how good that team was. To argue that it does is arguing the end result is the proof of the cause, which is a fallacious circular argument.

 

[Bostonian1962]

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.

No disrespect, and I don't mean to take sides, but 'tech' is so right about this it isn't even funny. Stats mean little here. I am the biggest Patriots fan on the planet, and my reflex is to say the Patriots were the most dominant team. They were not. Forget the stats. Watch both teams.

That Bears team was the most dominant team in history. The '07 Patriots beating the woeful Bills 38 to 7, and the horrible 'Skins 52 - 7 might help their average margin of victory stat, but so what?

You'd have more of an argument had the Patriots won the Super Bowl, but they didn't.

 

[emoney_33]

You'd have more of an argument had the Patriots won the Super Bowl, but they didn't.

Right so if a single uncontrollable factor like the referee blowing the whistle were to be different and the Patriots won that game, all of a sudden the team is different and more dominant?

 

[RayClay]

You are going far off on some tangent to prove the 2007 Patriots were "not dominant" because they didn't happen to win the last game.

So your saying the "last game" is no more important than the other games?

Let's say, for argument sake, that the Super Bowl is more important than some early season game against Buffalo. With two weeks to prepare, the best offense in the history of mankind can only put up 14 points.

That's dominant?

 

[RayClay]

Right so if a single uncontrollable factor like the referee blowing the whistle were to be different and the Patriots won that game, all of a sudden the team is different and more dominant?

Well, I saw the ball in Tom Brady's hands all day. The controllable factor would have been the Patriots putting up 30 + points, if they were the most dominant team of all time.

Totally in their hands.

 

[emoney_33]

So your saying the "last game" is no more important than the other games?

Let's say, for argument sake, that the Super Bowl is more important than some early season game against Buffalo. With two weeks to prepare, the best offense in the history of mankind can only put up 14 points.

That's dominant?

It's more "important" but that doesn't mean it should be weighted dramatically when discussing the entire body of work and that team. You can ignore all the factors you want and throw out the entire season and focus on one single end result, but that's not how the real world works. If that ref blew the whistle and the Patriots won, nothing changes except your "opinion" of the team.

Well, I saw the ball in Tom Brady's hands all day. The controllable factor would have been the Patriots putting up 30 + points, if they were the most dominant team of all time.

Totally in their hands.

This statement is ridiculous and absurd. Nice perfect world you live in there, where everything that happens is directly controllable by you alone. It means more to YOU but it doesn't take away the fact that they played 19 games and were dominant a vast majority of the time. More dominant more frequently than most other teams in history. Despite what you like to believe, there is no special ability to "just win".

 

[Sivy]

The 2007 patriots was the best team ever put together in the nfl. The 2010 patritos may be great in their own way, but to do what the 2007 version did and then some would warrant the respect of even jets fans.

 

[ivanvamp]

Right so if a single uncontrollable factor like the referee blowing the whistle were to be different and the Patriots won that game, all of a sudden the team is different and more dominant?

The Pats won three Super Bowls by three points apiece. We could have just as easily had a whistle or a single play go the other way in each of those playoff runs and we don't have *any* Lombardi's.

But more to the point, the Pats lost to the Giants, and the only way that could have happened (as I argued with my friends before the game) was if all three of the following things happened:

1. The Patriots had to play a subpar game. If they played their best game, nothing else would matter as the Pats would cruise. But they didn't. They played, by their standards, pretty poorly.

2. The Giants had to play an excellent game. And they did.

3. The Giants had to get the breaks (a fumble bouncing to their guy, a bad call by the ref, whatever). They did. Other than the one Pats INT, every break went the Giants' way, including several crucial plays during that last drive.

This takes nothing away from the Giants, because they did their part - they played an excellent game. It was out of their control that there were highly questionable calls (no holding on the hail mary helmet play) or mistakes made by the Pats (Asante not intercepting that ball).

But here's the key: the Patriots had many, many opportunities to win that game, regardless of any single call. They failed to do that. The Pats had the opportunity to impose their will on that game and, except, really, for one drive in the 4th quarter, they did not do it. They played poorly and allowed the Giants to hang around, thus making it possible for a bad call or a bad bounce or a miracle play to beat them. The 1989 49ers or the 1985-86 Bears never allowed a playoff game to get to that point. They hammered the crap out of teams in dominant fashion. The Pats had the ability to do that, but they didn't. And it cost them the NFL title.

 

[Deus Irae]

No disrespect, and I don't mean to take sides, but 'tech' is so right about this it isn't even funny. Stats mean little here. I am the biggest Patriots fan on the planet, and my reflex is to say the Patriots were the most dominant team. They were not. Forget the stats. Watch both teams.

That Bears team was the most dominant team in history. The '07 Patriots beating the woeful Bills 38 to 7, and the horrible 'Skins 52 - 7 might help their average margin of victory stat, but so what?

You'd have more of an argument had the Patriots won the Super Bowl, but they didn't.

1.) I watched the Bears play. I'm not a young fan who wasn't around that season.

2.) The Super Bowl loss doesn't lessen the argument at all. The Patriots went 18-1 and lost one game by 3 points. The Bears went 18-1 and lost one game by 14 points.

3.) The Bears had a 36-0 win over a 4 win Falcons team, so I'm not really sure where the Bills/Skins stuff is supposed to factor in, especially since the Redskins were a 9-7 team.

 

[RayClay]

This statement is ridiculous and absurd. Nice perfect world you live in there, where everything that happens is directly controllable by you alone. It means more to YOU but it doesn't take away the fact that they played 19 games and were dominant a vast majority of the time. More dominant more frequently than most other teams in history. Despite what you like to believe, there is no special ability to "just win".

So you have the most dominant offense of all time, two weeks to prepare, and your defense holds the other team to 17 points.

Scoring more than 17 points is beyond your control? For the most dominant offense on the most dominant team of all time?

What was beyond the teams control? Earthquake? Hurricane?

 

[JoeSixPat]

Poor Kontra

I think he likes movies about Gladiators


... crap... just too many hilarious lines in that movie

Young Boy with Coffee: Excuse me, I happened to be passing, and I thought you might like some coffee.
Little Girl: Oh, that's very nice of you, thank you.
[takes coffee]
Little Girl: Oh, won't you sit down?
Young Boy with Coffee: Cream?
Little Girl: No, thank you, I take it black, like my men.

 

[mgteich]

The most dominant offense in the history of football was able to score 7 points in each of the two halves of the Super Bowl. Yet, almost everyone will tell you that it was the defense that failed us. And they did! They didn't know that the offense wasn't capable of scoring 18 points on that day.

So you have the most dominant offense of all time, two weeks to prepare, and your defense holds the other team to 17 points.

Scoring more than 17 points is beyond your control? For the most dominant offense on the most dominant team of all time?

What was beyond the teams control? Earthquake? Hurricane?

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

My 3 cents:

The most dominant team I've ever watched was the 1989 49ers. That was the first time I followed NFL (so yeah I can't speak on the 85 Bears or 78 Steelers) and watching that team in the playoffs was like watching a machine. It was like our 2007 team in the first half of 2007, but the 9ers big run was in the playoffs which IMO makes it more impressive. That's the hardest, most crucial part of your season and they just ran through everyone. I honestly feel that no team I've watched can beat that team the way they were playing in the postseason.

2007 Patriots > 2004 Patriots in the regular season by a wide margin, for obvious reasons.

2004 Patriots > 2007 Patriots in the playoffs by a wide margin, considering the difficulty of opponents and the way they dominated the AFC games.

 

[RayClay]

The most dominant offense in the history of football was able to score 7 points in each of the two halves of the Super Bowl. Yet, almost everyone will tell you that it was the defense that failed us. And they did! They didn't know that the offense wasn't capable of scoring 18 points on that day.

I would contend, the theoretical most dominant team of all time would be so balanced that no team could shut it down.

[That doesn't mean it wouldn't lose. In season losses are much different than playoff losses, which are exits.]

It would be above average or great at running back, tight end, offensive line and defense, for example. I think that team was below average, to good in those areas, whereas other teams I would consider dominant could beat you with their defense and running game, for example, if someone went all out to stop their passing game at all costs.

When your claim to dominance is beating some teams 50-14 for example (not an actual score) are the last 35 points indicative of dominance, given that there is no reward for total points scored, outside of a possible tie breaker? Even a tie breaker likely doesn't come into play because, if you are considered to be dominant, you probably have enough wins to avoid that outcome.

To me a dominant team can beat you playing their game, your game or some other. They are versatile, so virtually indefensible. Could that 2007 team beat you with defense, grind it out on the ground, or any other variation besides their established passing offense? Don't know. They didn't prove they could in 2007.

 

[Patjew]

Hanging Lady: Nervous?
Ted Striker: Yes.
Hanging Lady: First time?
Ted Striker: No, I've been nervous lots of times.

 

[Joker]

I think Patjew will be much more dominant this upcoming season...:yeeha: