rabthepat
2nd Team Getting Their First Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,541
- Reaction score
- 0
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Nope....this is the same old team as last year...just winning the division will be a major accomplishment.
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)
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
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.