NFL.com ranks Top 10 offenses in NFL history -- 2007 Pats are not #1

[aurakilla]

all that matters is the final score

according to the video that is all that mattered. Were only having this discussion because nfl.com f***** up the totals for the 07 pats.

 

[efin98]

according to the video that is all that mattered. Were only having this discussion because nfl.com f***** up the totals for the 07 pats.

I know we are also talking about the messed up stats but they are also off on the teams winning. Only two won the Super Bowl or NFL Championship(since two pre-Super Bowl teams are included).

Hell the '87 49ers and '04 Colts lost in the divisional round and the '81 Chargers and '98 Vikings never made it to the Super Bowl and the '07 Patriots, '83 Redskins, '84 Dolphins lost the Super Bowl(Patriots only one that acutally came close to winning) and '50 Rams lost in the NFL Championship.


What's really funny is that we aren't the only ones saying it's due to Martz and Faulk being on the show- I'm reading a Vikings message board and they are ripping up the list too...for the same bias. They have their own bias in favor of the Vikings but it's there.

 

[maverick4]

Hell the '87 49ers and '04 Colts lost in the divisional round and the '81 Chargers and '98 Vikings never made it to the Super Bowl and the '07 Patriots, '83 Redskins, '84 Dolphins lost the Super Bowl(Patriots only one that acutally came close to winning) and '50 Rams lost in the NFL Championship.

What's really funny is that we aren't the only ones saying it's due to Martz and Faulk being on the show- I'm reading a Vikings message board and they are ripping up the list too...for the same bias. They have their own bias in favor of the Vikings but it's there.

The bias is what is stupid, each fan base obsessing over stats and making up excuses for their team's failures. What you just saw on that Vikings board is probably similar to what Colts fans are saying too.

As for that list, it is definitely flawed. If they're not going to care about rings, then they left out some other dynamic offenses, like the early 90's Bills offense or the old Houston Oilers offense. I also think if it was just purely yards and points based, then it should be based on something like a 3-year average or another period tracking a longer body of work, instead of just a single season.

To use a baseball analogy, one likely wouldn't make a list of best all-time home run hitters or just hitters based on a single season.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

....

I expect this type of oversight from ESPN but I expect better from the NFL's own network.

thanks. the nfl network cooked the books.

 

[Clonamery]

The bias is what is stupid, each fan base obsessing over stats and making up excuses for their team's failures. What you just saw on that Vikings board is probably similar to what Colts fans are saying too.

As for that list, it is definitely flawed. If they're not going to care about rings, then they left out some other dynamic offenses, like the early 90's Bills offense or the old Houston Oilers offense. I also think if it was just purely yards and points based, then it should be based on something like a 3-year average or another period tracking a longer body of work, instead of just a single season.

To use a baseball analogy, one likely wouldn't make a list of best all-time home run hitters or just hitters based on a single season.

Do you ever know what you are going to say when you say it? Are you actually Marshall Faulk?

 

[aurakilla]

the 1998 Vikings offense was better then the 1999 rams offense

The Vikings' high-powered offense set a record, which stood until the 2007 season, for most points scored in a season with 556. They eclipsed the 1983 Washington Redskins, who scored 541. The 2007 New England Patriots beat the record by scoring 589 points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Minnesota_Vikings_season#Awards_and_Records

unless wikipedias wrong?

so i guess marshall did fk with that list

 

[maverick4]

the 1998 Vikings offense was better then the 1999 rams offense

The Vikings' high-powered offense set a record, which stood until the 2007 season, for most points scored in a season with 556. They eclipsed the 1983 Washington Redskins, who scored 541. The 2007 New England Patriots beat the record by scoring 589 points.

1998 Minnesota Vikings season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

unless wikipedias wrong?

so i guess marshall did fk with that list

This supports the argument that without a ring, nobody gives a sh*t.

 

[Clonamery]

This supports the argument that without a ring, nobody gives a sh*t.

Hello Nobody.

 

[maverick4]

Are you actually Marshall Faulk?

It's not that hard to follow. It's a very simple argument that you're refusing to follow, because it goes against your completely biased view that the 07 Pats team is the best offense ever, a similar viewpoint from what Colts and Vikings homers are whining about as well.

 

[aurakilla]

This supports the argument that without a ring, nobody gives a sh*t.

then why isnt #10 #2?





no 1 is saying they were the best TEAM ever, but they were highest scoreing offence thus far in history

 

[Kontradiction]

Let me put this in big, bold letters so some of us can understand...

When trying to decide the greatest SINGLE UNIT in NFL history, Super Bowls should not be counted because it takes both units to play at a high level in order to acheive that victory. Greatest single units should be decided by the stats, no matter if "everyone" remembers them or not.

 

[WelshPat]

First of all, the 2000 rams were a better offense than the 1999 version. Its just that 2000 Rams D was BRUTAL

Lets look at the offences player for player:

Brady>>>>>warner

Faulk>>>>>>>>>The pats tandem of RB

Bruce and Holt>> Moss and Welker (Moss is the best of the 4, but WW is not as good as Bruce or Holt... thats not even close)

Pace>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Light

Im not going to pretend to know which team had the better interior O-line. I would say Watson is better than the Rams TE but he was used mainly for blocking in MM scheme.

Player for player, the rams are better, it's just that the Brady/Moss combo closes the gap. If you were to combine the two, there would be more Rams players, no doubt.

 

[Deus Irae]

Thank you for nicely summing up my deleted replies.

I'm with you on this. Some threads and posters really should be subjected to the Chiefsplanet treatment.

 

[upstater1]

The 1999 Rams won the Super Bowl. The 2007 Patriots did not.

The Rams deserve the title "Best offense in NFL history". They finished their job.

This makes no sense.

Offenses don't win Super Bowls, teams win Super Bowls. If an offense averages 45 points a game, and their defense allows 46 points a game, that still makes that offense the best ever.

 

[glm]

For Sanders I'm not sure he'd be considered top 3 all time, despite his amazing stats. He still was a flawed running back in that in between his breakaway runs, he'd give a lot of zero or negative yardage runs.

Having a horrible offensive line coukdn't have been a huge factor . . . ?

He's the RB version of a Dan Marino, a stats machine who was flawed.

Didn't Dan Marino have a good offensive line?

They didn't play championship style football, so despite their amazing stats aren't part of the top 3 all time discussion.

What would happen if many people thought Barry was top 3 all time?

The same thing applies to teams or offensive units. Some offenses can put up monster points but don't play championship-style.

I thought the whole objective of offense was to score points. Isn't that what champions do?

A lot of you whining about the 07 Pats not being considered the all time best offense, would have argued the other way before 07.

Would we have argued that the 2007 Pats is the best offense ever before 2007?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The only winner here is the NFL Network, which apparently stirred up discussion on multiple fan boards. The more I think about it and after being suckered by the false stats in the initial clip, I think that the question itself is bogus.

A team could have a great offense, but it's D could be weaker and so its W-L and Playoff records could be skewed. Also, a team with an all-time great Offense could play a schedule in which it faces teams with very strong D's, while a team with a lesser Offense could play weaker D's and put up bigger numbers. In addition, teams have played under very different rules over the last 50 years. So, a team that played when a D could do everything but murder a receiver downfield and mug the quarterback to boot would be at a disadvantage to teams that play under today's rules.

The hypothetical way to resolve this is on the basis not of raw stats, but of stats adjusted for the relative strength of a team's own D, the relative strength of the D's against which it played and the rulebook at the time it played. To me, that would be a gigantic waste of time and would still yield a contested result.

So, we're left with the Offensive stats, year by year. Add em up: Total Yards, Average Yards per game, Total TD's and Average TD's per game. As far as I can see, that puts the 2007 Pats at the top of the list.

The bottom line, for me, is that NFL teams are still measured by one ruler: the number of championships won. That puts the Belichick/Brady Pats, Offense and Defense, among the three or four greatest teams of all time. If they add one more Lombardi in this post cap and free agency era, there is no dispute that they represent the greatest team ever, on both sides of the ball.

 

[godef]

Where'd you get those numbers. They're all wrong. The Patriots averaged more points and scored more touchdowns than any team in NFL history. That yardage total is nonsense as well. None of those are correct.

Here are the correct numbers.

411.3 yards per game
36.8 pts per game (NFL record 589 total)
75 TD's (NFL record)

I expect this type of oversight from ESPN but I expect better from the NFL's own network.

Actually, even though the Patriots scored the most regular season points in the regular season, the best average points scored per game was achieved by the 1950's LA Rams who scored 466 points in 12 games for an average of 38.8.

Although the 07 Pats did not win it all, their overall record was better than the 09 Rams (18-1 vs 16-3), and though they won the Super Bowl, they weren't exactly lights out offensively in the postseason.

I'd think one would have to consider how efficient the Patriots offense was. Any one remember talking about the outrageous percentages in TD's scored when starting from such-and-such yard line that year? Was there ever any offense that was machine-like as the 07 Pats?

 

[BradyFTW!]

The 1998 Vikings didn't win the game, period. The 2001 Rams and 2007 Patriots offenses also got stuffed, no matter how many excuses are made from those fan bases.

Some of you sound the same way bitter Rams or Colts fans sounded after the Pats beat them in big games from 01-04. Even after getting beat, they'd still claim they had the better team. According to the scoreboard, they didn't.

Right, so if the argument was for best team, that would actually matter. If you're going to make a list of the best offenses, though, then you have to discount for the fact that some of those offenses were paired with crappy defenses that collapsed when it mattered. The '98 Vikings being a prime example.

Once again, that team scored more than enough to win the game. It was the defense (30 points to Chris Chandler's Falcons? Really?) and the ST (Gary Anderson's first missed field goal of the season) that choked it away.

If you're trying to list the best offenses, then you can't hold them accountable for the screwups of the defense and ST. This is such a simple concept that I'm legitimately surprised that i have to explain it at length.

FWIW, if I was making my list, the '98 Vikings and '07 Pats would be 1 and 2, and I'm not sure who would be #1. They had ridiculous talent at WR (Moss, Carter, Reed) that probably edges ours out on the strength of Reed > Gaffney. Robert Smith was better than any of our RBs, and actually stayed healthy in '98. Brady is obviously a huge upgrade over Randall Cunningham though, although Cunningham was first-team allpro that year.

 

[Kontradiction]

The only winner here is the NFL Network, which apparently stirred up discussion on multiple fan boards. The more I think about it and after being suckered by the false stats in the initial clip, I think that the question itself is bogus.

A team could have a great offense, but it's D could be weaker and so its W-L and Playoff records could be skewed. Also, a team with an all-time great Offense could play a schedule in which it faces teams with very strong D's, while a team with a lesser Offense could play weaker D's and put up bigger numbers. In addition, teams have played under very different rules over the last 50 years. So, a team that played when a D could do everything but murder a receiver downfield and mug the quarterback to boot would be at a disadvantage to teams that play under today's rules.

The hypothetical way to resolve this is on the basis not of raw stats, but of stats adjusted for the relative strength of a team's own D, the relative strength of the D's against which it played and the rulebook at the time it played. To me, that would be a gigantic waste of time and would still yield a contested result.

So, we're left with the Offensive stats, year by year. Add em up: Total Yards, Average Yards per game, Total TD's and Average TD's per game. As far as I can see, that puts the 2007 Pats at the top of the list.

The bottom line, for me, is that NFL teams are still measured by one ruler: the number of championships won. That puts the Belichick/Brady Pats, Offense and Defense, among the three or four greatest teams of all time. If they add one more Lombardi in this post cap and free agency era, there is no dispute that they represent the greatest team ever, on both sides of the ball.

Now you're being reasonable. Though, I gotta admit, that second paragraph made my head spin.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Since Scottie already posted all of my other points for me, I'll just take this one.

You should really consider that the 2007 Patriots not only set just about every statistical record for NFL offenses, but they were also 18-0 (best record in NFL history) and were one miracle catch away from winning that Super Bowl and finishing the season undefeated. In other words, what you're essentially saying is that the Pats would have to have been the best team in NFL history in order to surpass the Rams.

As far as the statistics go, we overpower the 1999 Rams easily...

2007 Patriots:

1. 589 points scored.
2. 6,580 total yards.
3. 67 touchdowns scored.
4. Passing - 4,731 yards; 50 TDs; 9 INTs.
5. Rushing - 1,849 yards; 17 TDs.

1999 Rams:

1. 526 points scored.
2. 6,412 total yards.
3. 55 touchdowns scored.
4. Passing - 4,353 yards; 42 TDs; 15 INTs.
5. Rushing - 2,059 yards; 13 TDs.

2007 New England Patriots Statistics & Players - Pro-Football-Reference.com

1999 St. Louis Rams Statistics & Players - Pro-Football-Reference.com

So, as you see, we have the 1999 Rams in every single statistical catagory except rushing yards. Conisidering how close we came to winning the whole thing, I think the 2007 Patriots can get a pass.

Also, it should be noted that the Patriots, under Bill Belichick, defeated what was pretty much the exact same Rams team in the Super Bowl two years after they set those offensive records.

Weird. Someone definitely messed up on their stats then. If that's the case, it looks like the Pats offense should be ranked #1. But I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. This has about as much meaning as a 'power poll'.