Ranking the most talented Patriots teams in NFL history

[TruthSeeker]

So what you're saying is that the most talented team always wins?

To which the corrolary is that luck doesn't play a factor...

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

To which the corrolary is that luck doesn't play a factor...

Luck was a factor in the crowning of a champion in at least 2 recent Super Bowls this decade,One FOR NE and One against NE -

SB 36 (The Tuck Rule call that overturned the original call)
SB 42 (The miraculous catch by Tyree)

 

[Ring 6]

Luck was a factor in the crowning of a champion in at least 2 recent Super Bowls this decade,One FOR NE and One against NE -

SB 36 (The Tuck Rule call that overturned the original call)
SB 42 (The miraculous catch by Tyree)

I dont know why that is considered luck.

Were the Patriots lucky that the correct call was made? Arguably, nothing in the world happens without luck if you take that extreme.
Tyree made the play. That is great play not luck.

 

[Ring 6]

To which the corrolary is that luck doesn't play a factor...

I agree that competition is not decided by luck.
Everything that happens on a field is done by a player, not fate or luck.

 

[RDS11]

I agree that competition is not decided by luck.
Everything that happens on a field is done by a player, not fate or luck.

IMO, you can't evaluate a team based on a single game in a given season, Super Bowl or not. If that was the case, coaches wouldn't spend 28 hours a day looking at films.

I agree that the ability to close out a game should be part of the evaluation package. But luck does play a part. Entering Super Bowl 42, Brady was on 1 leg. A healthy Tom Brady might have avoided the rush better, we'll never know. But the Tom Brady of Super Bowl 42 is not the same Brady who played the previous 18 games.

There's also referees decisions coming into play. The tuck rule was the correct call, but would this had been called the same way by a different referee ? Maybe, maybe not (I'm not saying some referees don't know the rules, but the interpretation of when the QB has tucked the ball in and is set to throw again, that's debatable). So because of one debatable call over an entire season, the 2001 team is considered more talented than the 2007 team ? And if it had been ruled a fumble, by the same logic the 2007 team would have been the more talented of the 2 ? And if the evaluation is mostly based on being clutch in the last game of the season, then we have to account for the fact that Brady himself thought it was a fumble which would have ended the 2001 season.

Fact is, the 2001 Pats won the Super Bowl because of superior coaching. True, the players executed flawlessly. But if both the 2001 and 2007 teams were to play each other, the genius who did the game plan for Super Bowl 36 wouldn't be facing a Martz coached team this time, he would be facing himself. And 2007 Belichick would have probably adjusted earlier than Martz did.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

I dont know why that is considered luck.

Were the Patriots lucky that the correct call was made? Arguably, nothing in the world happens without luck if you take that extreme.
Tyree made the play. That is great play not luck.

9 out of 10 times that fumble call is not reversed,I really wonder if that call would have been reversed if the game was in Oakland and by a different crew,I don't think the refs would have gotten out of that stadium alive had it been so.

Tyree made a great play but luck involved the fact that Eli was able to come out from under 3 300 pound defensive player's grasp to move out from under a mass of humanity and have room to toss the miracle pass which Tyree made an amazing catch,There was luck twice on that play but started from the QB and then onto the WR - You could say Eli was more lucky than Tyree if you want to get technical.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

I agree that competition is not decided by luck.
Everything that happens on a field is done by a player, not fate or luck.

Sometimes luck goes beyond the field such as the fact that there were seconds left in SB 36 that went without a whimper and dismissed when in reality the Rams could certainly had a chance to get the ball back with 5 or 6 seconds left but was never brought up until after the game.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

I don't understand how anyone can legitimately argue that talent always wins out. Sporting history is rife with examples of the underdog pulling out the hard fought victory over a more talented opponent. That's exactly what happened in SB 36 in our favor and in SB 42 in the NYG favor. It's okay to admit it. You can still be a Pats fan.

 

[Ring 6]

9 out of 10 times that fumble call is not reversed,I really wonder if that call would have been reversed if the game was in Oakland and by a different crew,I don't think the refs would have gotten out of that stadium alive had it been so.

Tyree made a great play but luck involved the fact that Eli was able to come out from under 3 300 pound defensive player's grasp to move out from under a mass of humanity and have room to toss the miracle pass which Tyree made an amazing catch,There was luck twice on that play but started from the QB and then onto the WR - You could say Eli was more lucky than Tyree if you want to get technical.

Simply not true. The tuck play has been called many times. It was called in the Jets favor against us earlier in the season.
Are we really going back to the argument that because fans don't know the rules it must mean the refs don't and we were lucky to have the one ref who did? Thats pretty weak.

They made the play, that is skill and ability not luck. He PHYSICALLY avoided being tackled. Was Barry Sanders lucky for his career? Great plays are great plays, not luck.

 

[Ring 6]

IMO, you can't evaluate a team based on a single game in a given season, Super Bowl or not. If that was the case, coaches wouldn't spend 28 hours a day looking at films.

I agree that the ability to close out a game should be part of the evaluation package. But luck does play a part. Entering Super Bowl 42, Brady was on 1 leg. A healthy Tom Brady might have avoided the rush better, we'll never know. But the Tom Brady of Super Bowl 42 is not the same Brady who played the previous 18 games.

There's also referees decisions coming into play. The tuck rule was the correct call, but would this had been called the same way by a different referee ? Maybe, maybe not (I'm not saying some referees don't know the rules, but the interpretation of when the QB has tucked the ball in and is set to throw again, that's debatable). So because of one debatable call over an entire season, the 2001 team is considered more talented than the 2007 team ? And if it had been ruled a fumble, by the same logic the 2007 team would have been the more talented of the 2 ? And if the evaluation is mostly based on being clutch in the last game of the season, then we have to account for the fact that Brady himself thought it was a fumble which would have ended the 2001 season.

Fact is, the 2001 Pats won the Super Bowl because of superior coaching. True, the players executed flawlessly. But if both the 2001 and 2007 teams were to play each other, the genius who did the game plan for Super Bowl 36 wouldn't be facing a Martz coached team this time, he would be facing himself. And 2007 Belichick would have probably adjusted earlier than Martz did.

But I am evaluating them based on an entire season, and reaching or not reaching the goal.
Achieving what you set out to do stands alone, the excuses, reasons, explanations, rationalizations are all fine, but the bottom line is there are 32 teams that set out to win a SB. None set out to 'be the best' by ANY OTHER definition. If there is one sole goal among all participants the best is the one who achieves it and all subjective reasoning cannot change that.
Thats my opinion at least.
Look at it this way, for everything you can use as luck, or excuse or explanation, rationalization, etc, there is a very simple answer. They could have overcome it.
You may find that harsh, but we are talking about BEING THE BEST and I think its fair to set the bar extremely high, and not accept failure with explanation over success.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't understand how anyone can legitimately argue that talent always wins out. Sporting history is rife with examples of the underdog pulling out the hard fought victory over a more talented opponent. That's exactly what happened in SB 36 in our favor and in SB 42 in the NYG favor. It's okay to admit it. You can still be a Pats fan.

It depends on how you define talent. The ability to make the play in the clutch that win the big games is a hige part of my definition. Therefore, the Pats were better than the Rams in 2001, because when it matter they outplayed them, and the same for the Giants in 2007.
What you are saying is that although the reason you have a season is to crown a champion other factors that executing your job to become a champion are more indicative of 'talent'. I simply disagree. The job isn't to run the fastest, jump the highest, put up the most stats, the job is to win the championship, and whatever qualities that requires are what I consider among 'talent'.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I agree that competition is not decided by luck.
Everything that happens on a field is done by a player, not fate or luck.

Even a football rolling up against an unconscious player who is partially out of bounds?

That seems a rather strict definition to me and not one I would agree with.

 

[RDS11]

But I am evaluating them based on an entire season, and reaching or not reaching the goal.
Achieving what you set out to do stands alone, the excuses, reasons, explanations, rationalizations are all fine, but the bottom line is there are 32 teams that set out to win a SB. None set out to 'be the best' by ANY OTHER definition. If there is one sole goal among all participants the best is the one who achieves it and all subjective reasoning cannot change that.
Thats my opinion at least.
Look at it this way, for everything you can use as luck, or excuse or explanation, rationalization, etc, there is a very simple answer. They could have overcome it.
You may find that harsh, but we are talking about BEING THE BEST and I think its fair to set the bar extremely high, and not accept failure with explanation over success.

I agree with you if you look at talent for a given year. The 2001 Pats were the best team in the NFL that year and the 2007 Giants were the best team that year.

However, when comparing different years, it might not hold true. The 2nd best team of 1985 might have won the Super Bowl on any other year, but in 1985 it just happened that they were inferior to the Bears.
The 2007 Pats team would probably have won it all in 2006, we'll never know. But given how close they were to beat the Colts in 2006, and given how much better the Pats were in 2007, it's not much of a reach to think they would have won Super Bowl 41 with the 2007 roster.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

It depends on how you define talent. The ability to make the play in the clutch that win the big games is a hige part of my definition. Therefore, the Pats were better than the Rams in 2001, because when it matter they outplayed them, and the same for the Giants in 2007.
What you are saying is that although the reason you have a season is to crown a champion other factors that executing your job to become a champion are more indicative of 'talent'. I simply disagree. The job isn't to run the fastest, jump the highest, put up the most stats, the job is to win the championship, and whatever qualities that requires are what I consider among 'talent'.

Certainly you need talent to win in sports. But wouldn't you agree that winning is about more than just talent? Sometimes it's about who plays better on that given day or even who wants it more. I'd say on occassion it's even about luck.

Would you agree that Tiger Woods is a more talented player than Lucas Glover even though he did not win the US Open this year and Glover did? I think we all would agree that the reason the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team's victory over the Soviets was so shocking and memorable was because it was so unlikely. Why was it so unlikely? It was unlikely because of the huge disparity between the two teams in both talent and experience. The Soviets were a well oiled machine full of seasoned professionals. Our boys were a bunch of college kids. Fortunately for us those kids played the game of their lives that night and the rest is history--perhaps approaching legend. But please don't try to convince us that the US team was more talented. If it were so they would have been the favorites and their triumph would have met with a yawn and an afternoon headline instead of the immortal reverence and awe it inspired.

Was Villanova the more talented basketball team when they beat a loaded Georgetown team for the NCAA title in 1984? No way. On any other night they'd have been run out of the building. But not on THAT night. That night was the perfect storm. They shot an unbelievable 75% for the game and won so improbably we remember it 25 years later like it happened last weekend. Pretty incredible considering most here probably can't remember the participants of the NCAA title game from just five years ago let alone 25. I could go on and on. Was Buster Douglas a more talented fighter than Mike Tyson? Was Rulon Gardner a more talented wrestler than Alexander Karelin? Come on Andy.

 

[Rob0729]

Although I would rank the 2004 team over the 2003 team, the 2003 defense was the best defense the Patriots ever had. That defense gets shortchanged when discussions of the best of NFL history. Not it isn't up there with the 1985 Bears or 2000 Ravens, but I would put it in the top 10-20 of all time. That defense was stingy and opportunistic and hid what was a rather mediocre offense that year (the only year in Brady's career where he couldn't elevate the offense to at least above average level, well and 2001 where they didn't let Brady do too much).

 

[Ring 6]

Certainly you need talent to win in sports. But wouldn't you agree that winning is about more than just talent? Sometimes it's about who plays better on that given day or even who wants it more. I'd say on occassion it's even about luck.

Would you agree that Tiger Woods is a more talented player than Lucas Glover even though he did not win the US Open this year and Glover did? I think we all would agree that the reason the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team's victory over the Soviets was so shocking and memorable was because it was so unlikely. Why was it so unlikely? It was unlikely because of the huge disparity between the two teams in both talent and experience. The Soviets were a well oiled machine full of seasoned professionals. Our boys were a bunch of college kids. Fortunately for us those kids played the game of their lives that night and the rest is history--perhaps approaching legend. But please don't try to convince us that the US team was more talented. If it were so they would have been the favorites and their triumph would have met with a yawn and an afternoon headline instead of the immortal reverence and awe it inspired.

Was Villanova the more talented basketball team when they beat a loaded Georgetown team for the NCAA title in 1984? No way. On any other night they'd have been run out of the building. But not on THAT night. That night was the perfect storm. They shot an unbelievable 75% for the game and won so improbably we remember it 25 years later like it happened last weekend. Pretty incredible considering most here probably can't remember the participants of the NCAA title game from just five years ago let alone 25. I could go on and on. Was Buster Douglas a more talented fighter than Mike Tyson? Was Rulon Gardner a more talented wrestler than Alexander Karelin? Come on Andy.

You continue to argue from the premise that I accept your limited definition of talent, and I do not.
You don't have to accept mine either, but the US Olympic Hockey team in 1980 had more talent than the Russians in that Olympics, because every quality in them added to achieving their goal. You said they played the game of their lives. That characteristic when talking about THE TEAM THAT PLAYED IN THOSE OLYMPICS is part of what I consider talent.

I have not asked you to adopt my definition of talent. I have answered the question the op posed with an answer that fits my definiton, and have explained my definition. Do you really think you can argue with me that I have to accept your definition of talent? That would be silly, wouldn't it.
Once again, I believe that talent is not how fast you run or how high you jump but how everything about the individual, team, unit, organization that is competing toward a goal adds up to help them achieve that goal, i.e. a championship.
If the goal is winning a championship, I consider 'talent' to be the ability to win a championship, so I cant consider the loser of that championship to be more talented by changing the definition of talented.

 

[Ring 6]

Although I would rank the 2004 team over the 2003 team, the 2003 defense was the best defense the Patriots ever had. That defense gets shortchanged when discussions of the best of NFL history. Not it isn't up there with the 1985 Bears or 2000 Ravens, but I would put it in the top 10-20 of all time. That defense was stingy and opportunistic and hid what was a rather mediocre offense that year (the only year in Brady's career where he couldn't elevate the offense to at least above average level, well and 2001 where they didn't let Brady do too much).

The 2003 team also defeated more quality opponents than any team in NFL history. (IIRC, it was 10 wins against 10 win teams)

 

[PYPER]

#1 - 2007 team - Likely the unanimous choice at #1 unless you are on crack
#2 - 2004 team - Team had great depth and won many nail biters
#3 - 2003 team - After week 1,they got together and turned out the lights
#4 - 2008 team - No Brady after a 1/4 of play but still talented than most
#5 - 1995 team - Drew Bledsoe & a cast of talented but little known players
#6 - 1976 team - A loaded championship team with bad fortune
#7 - 2001 team - Brady with a cast of 'who is that?' overachieving players
#8 - 1985 team - Sure they made the SB but talent was below the top 8
#9 - 2006 team - With some AFCCG defense in the 4th qtr they win it all
#10 -1978 team - Fairbanks exit disrupted a championship talented team

I left out a very good 1986 team but I think the 1978 squad was more talented.

It's always tricky defining talent. I'm more interested in identifying which team is the best, which doesn't necessarily mean the most talented.

I would argue that both the 2003 and 2004 teams were better than the 2007 team but for different reasons. Our 2003 defense was by far the best we've ever had. We had no weaknesses. Teams couldn't run on us so they were forced to pass. While the yardage rankings against the pass may have falsely led some to believe we were vulnerable through the air, nothing could be further from the truth. The Pats led the league in Int's, fewest TD's allowed, fewest yards per attempt, and held opposing QB's to an average passer rating of 56 which is the lowest rating number since the 2002 Bucs.

The 2004 team, on the other hand, was successful b/c of their style. While still dangerous through the air, the 2004 team's primary strength was its running game. The 2004 utilized Corey Dillon to punish opposing teams with long time consuming drives. The second half of the playoff victory over the Colts was an absolute clinic. The defense likely would have been just as good as the 2003 team but were unfortunately devastated by injuries. If we're talking about a healthy roster, I'd pick the 2004 team number one but if we consider the injuries, I might have to go with the 2003 team that won its final fifteen games.

The 2007 team was definitely the most talented squad we've had, at least on offense but their style of play wasn't conducive to winning. They became an offensive juggernaut that became too dependent on the passing game. I believe the balanced offensive philosophy utilized between 2003-2004 would trump over the aerial exploits of 2007. While Moss and Welker would chew up the replacement secondary of 2004, Ty Law and the rest of the guys from the 2003 team would have managed to hold them in check. The 2007 defense would have a much harder go against the 2003 and 2004 Patriots offenses.

Therefore,

1) 2003
2) 2004
3) 2007
4) 1976
5) 2001
6) 1996
7) 2008
8) 1978
9) 1985
10) 2005
11) 2006
12) 1986
13) 1997
14) 1994
15) 1977

 

[BradyFTW!]

Most talented? Has to be 2007. Is this really even a debate, or does a miracle catch somehow disqualify them from this one too?

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

I think some people are misreading the title of the thread. It's which Patriots "team" not "super bowl winning team" was the most talented. It's obviously 2007.