Ranking the most talented Patriots teams in NFL history

[Deus Irae]

Good do me a favor, lemme have it!

Some people here might be worth it. You're definitely not on that list. You're just a troll who's survived because you're more about posting nonsense than about open hostility.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

I decided to have some fun with this question and compare each Patriots team using some kind of standard with which to measure talent. To do this I began by ranking the individual starters in each position group across all three phases of the game and then averaged a final score for the whole team.

Each player was scored using the following ranking system according to what I perceived his talent level to be at that time...

1. Fail: (Scrub caliber player-what's this guy doing in the NFL??!!)
2. Bad: (Way below average caliber- garbage time only please!)
3. Liability: (Below average caliber back-up- limited PT and needs protection)
4. JAG: (Average caliber NFL back-up or below average starter- journeyman)
5. Starter: (Average caliber NFL starter)
6. Good: ( Above average caliber NFL starter for a short time- < 5 years)
7. Great: (Above average caliber NFL starter fora long time- 5+ years)
8. All Pro: (Recognized as a dominant caliber NFL starter)
9. HOFer: (Headed for Canton or already there)
10. GOAT: (In the argument for Greatest of All Time)

Here are the results:





Obviuosly this is all subjective and my memory may be faulty with some players or biased toward others. Feel free to help me adjust it where you think I might be off.

 

[TriplecHamp]

Some people here might be worth it. You're definitely not on that list. You're just a troll who's survived because you're more about posting nonsense than about open hostility.

Cool now Im a troll because I state the non objective truth...Friggin Homers piss me off

 

[Deus Irae]

I decided to have some fun with this question and compare each Patriots team using some kind of standard with which to measure talent. To do this I began by ranking the individual starters in each position group across all three phases of the game and then averaged a final score for the whole team.

Each player was scored using the following ranking system according to what I perceived his talent level to be at that time...

1. Fail: (Scrub caliber player-what's this guy doing in the NFL??!!)
2. Bad: (Way below average caliber- garbage time only please!)
3. Liability: (Below average caliber back-up- limited PT and needs protection)
4. JAG: (Average caliber NFL back-up or below average starter- journeyman)
5. Starter: (Average caliber NFL starter)
6. Good: ( Above average caliber NFL starter for a short time- < 5 years)
7. Great: (Above average caliber NFL starter fora long time- 5+ years)
8. All Pro: (Recognized as a dominant caliber NFL starter)
9. HOFer: (Headed for Canton or already there)
10. GOAT: (In the argument for Greatest of All Time)

Here are the results:





Obviuosly this is all subjective and my memory may be faulty with some players or biased toward others. Feel free to help me adjust it where you think I might be off.

Some quick notes, since you asked:

The special teams doesn't work if you just carry over your evaluations of them as starters. Hobbs is one of the best in the NFL as a returner. He's not even close to being just a 5 at that position.

Meggett's rated too high.

The 5 year requirement is a bad way to evaluate. 2007 Wilfork is only a 6 based upon that, despite his being an elite 3-4 NT that season.

I don't want to nitpick everything right off the bat, so let me offer those up for your perusal.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I decided to have some fun with this question and compare each Patriots team using some kind of standard with which to measure talent. To do this I began by ranking the individual starters in each position group across all three phases of the game and then averaged a final score for the whole team.

Each player was scored using the following ranking system according to what I perceived his talent level to be at that time...

1. Fail: (Scrub caliber player-what's this guy doing in the NFL??!!)
2. Bad: (Way below average caliber- garbage time only please!)
3. Liability: (Below average caliber back-up- limited PT and needs protection)
4. JAG: (Average caliber NFL back-up or below average starter- journeyman)
5. Starter: (Average caliber NFL starter)
6. Good: ( Above average caliber NFL starter for a short time- < 5 years)
7. Great: (Above average caliber NFL starter fora long time- 5+ years)
8. All Pro: (Recognized as a dominant caliber NFL starter)
9. HOFer: (Headed for Canton or already there)
10. GOAT: (In the argument for Greatest of All Time)

Here are the results:





Obviuosly this is all subjective and my memory may be faulty with some players or biased toward others. Feel free to help me adjust it where you think I might be off.

Damn, how long did that take? Cool idea, definitely. Looking at the 2007 team, there are a couple of points where I disagree a little:

Mankins as a 6 and Neal as a 5- We saw what happened in the SB when Mankins had a bad game and Neal got hurt. Personally, I'd rank them both at least a point higher.

Welker as a 7- had the most catches in the NFL, probably the best slot receiver in the league.You're probably going to argue that he was pretty much feeding off of Moss, which is fine--I disagree with it, but that's one that we're probably not going to settle on anytime soon. Also, putting Welker as a 7 goes against your 6/7 distinction

Asante Samuel, IMO, should have been an 8 in 2007. And, as Deus mentioned, Ellis is much better than a 5 as a KR.


Mostly, though, for the way that it's being applied, there seem to be 2 assumptions that I don't agree with:

1) That the averages work out: i.e., that having a 5 and a 9 is equivalent to having two 7s.

2) That positions are equally important: having a 10 at QB and a 5 at C is the same as having a 10 at C and a 5 at QB.

All in all, though, I think the fundamental premise of it is really cool, and definitely a really interesting way to attack this issue.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

Some quick notes, since you asked:

The special teams doesn't work if you just carry over your evaluations of them as starters. Hobbs is one of the best in the NFL as a returner. He's not even close to being just a 5 at that position.

Meggett's rated too high.

The 5 year requirement is a bad way to evaluate. 2007 Wilfork is only a 6 based upon that, despite his being an elite 3-4 NT that season.

I don't want to nitpick everything right off the bat, so let me offer those up for your perusal.

Thanks for the comments. I thought twice about doing this because I was afraid nobody would notice and I'd have wasted my time. Turned out it was fun anyway so it wouldn;t have mattered. But thanks for the feedback. How can I make it better--more accurate?

I agree about the special teams btw. Good point. Agreed about Hobbs as well. Bethel probably deserves a little more love based purely on his talents in the kick return game too. He averaged 28 years in 2003 IIRC.

Believe it or not I had the same thought about the longevity measurement and almost didn't use it. How would you differentiate between good and great without making it absolutely subjective? That's what I was having trouble with.

Damn, how long did that take? Cool idea, definitely. Looking at the 2007 team, there are a couple of points where I disagree a little:

Mankins as a 6 and Neal as a 5- We saw what happened in the SB when Mankins had a bad game and Neal got hurt. Personally, I'd rank them both at least a point higher.

Welker as a 7- had the most catches in the NFL, probably the best slot receiver in the league.You're probably going to argue that he was pretty much feeding off of Moss, which is fine--I disagree with it, but that's one that we're probably not going to settle on anytime soon. Also, putting Welker as a 7 goes against your 6/7 distinction

Asante Samuel, IMO, should have been an 8 in 2007. And, as Deus mentioned, Ellis is much better than a 5 as a KR.


Mostly, though, for the way that it's being applied, there seem to be 2 assumptions that I don't agree with:

1) That the averages work out: i.e., that having a 5 and a 9 is equivalent to having two 7s.

2) That positions are equally important: having a 10 at QB and a 5 at C is the same as having a 10 at C and a 5 at QB.

All in all, though, I think the fundamental premise of it is really cool, and definitely a really interesting way to attack this issue.

Thanks man! Took me about three hours over a couple days. To your points...

Re: Mankins and Neal. I think the chart might be a little hard to read. I saved it in low res to keep the file sizes down. Mankins is actually ranked a 7 and Neal a 6 not a 6 and 5 as you replied.

Re: Welker. I tried not to use their after the fact stats in my ratings and base it purely on talent and ability alone. I agree that Welker's 2007 season rates an 8 or more in terms of his performance but my argument would be that he is indeed a 7 at that point in his career and simply played over his head. I didn;t realize I goofed on the years thing. Thanks for pointing that out. As mentioned above, I don't think that's a very good way to distinguish between good and great. Any ideas?

Re: Asante and Ellis. Agreed. Putting Asante at an 8 and Ellis at 7 for KR chnges the overall score for the 2007 team to 6.47 vaulting them momentarily into first place. However if we're going to adjust Ellis as a KR we probably should do the same thing for that one trick pony Bethel Johnson in 2003-2004. Raising Bethel to a 6 puts the 2004 squad back on top overall at 6.57. Just one tenth of a point difference.

Re: Averages and counting all positions as equal. I actually didn't think of either of those. I suppose we could weight certain positions (such as QB and LT on offense and CB, OLB, DL on defense) to count as a higher percentage of the whole. Not sure what to do about the averaging though. How would you do it?

Hey, thanks for the input guys.

 

[Chevy]

I decided to have some fun with this question and compare each Patriots team using some kind of standard with which to measure talent. To do this I began by ranking the individual starters in each position group across all three phases of the game and then averaged a final score for the whole team.

Each player was scored using the following ranking system according to what I perceived his talent level to be at that time...

1. Fail: (Scrub caliber player-what's this guy doing in the NFL??!!)
2. Bad: (Way below average caliber- garbage time only please!)
3. Liability: (Below average caliber back-up- limited PT and needs protection)
4. JAG: (Average caliber NFL back-up or below average starter- journeyman)
5. Starter: (Average caliber NFL starter)
6. Good: ( Above average caliber NFL starter for a short time- < 5 years)
7. Great: (Above average caliber NFL starter fora long time- 5+ years)
8. All Pro: (Recognized as a dominant caliber NFL starter)
9. HOFer: (Headed for Canton or already there)
10. GOAT: (In the argument for Greatest of All Time)

Here are the results:





Obviuosly this is all subjective and my memory may be faulty with some players or biased toward others. Feel free to help me adjust it where you think I might be off.

-The 85 starting O-line was Holloway-Hannah-Brock-Wooten-Moore
-Don Blackmon deserves a 7 ... His play that year was top-notch, but without the flair of Tippett. Stout against the run and excellent in coverage.


That said ... Wow! nice work ....

 

[RayClay]

I decided to have some fun with this question and compare each Patriots team using some kind of standard with which to measure talent. To do this I began by ranking the individual starters in each position group across all three phases of the game and then averaged a final score for the whole team.

Each player was scored using the following ranking system according to what I perceived his talent level to be at that time...

1. Fail: (Scrub caliber player-what's this guy doing in the NFL??!!)
2. Bad: (Way below average caliber- garbage time only please!)
3. Liability: (Below average caliber back-up- limited PT and needs protection)
4. JAG: (Average caliber NFL back-up or below average starter- journeyman)
5. Starter: (Average caliber NFL starter)
6. Good: ( Above average caliber NFL starter for a short time- < 5 years)
7. Great: (Above average caliber NFL starter fora long time- 5+ years)
8. All Pro: (Recognized as a dominant caliber NFL starter)
9. HOFer: (Headed for Canton or already there)
10. GOAT: (In the argument for Greatest of All Time)

Here are the results:





Obviuosly this is all subjective and my memory may be faulty with some players or biased toward others. Feel free to help me adjust it where you think I might be off.

Sorry old chap. Ronnie Lippett 9, Ray Clayborn 7 is an epic fail. Law 7 too? Either you thought Lippett was Haynes, or your name's Lippett.

I might go 9-10 for Haynes and 8-9 for Law and Clayborn. If 7 is great, you can't really give Lippet more than 6, he was a good solid player, not great.

Nothing against Ronnie, he had a fine career especially for an 8th rounder, even snagging a big int number one year, but the other three are some of the best cornerbacks of the era.

Thanks for the work though. Pretty hard to rate players.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Once again I am not concerned with History. I am like Brady and consider the Next team and th Next Super bowl, more important. Fortunately, the upcoming 2009 edition f the Patriots appears to be the strongest of the decade, and that includes the 2007 16-0 team. 2007 didn't have a Galloway opposite Moss, nor the stable of RBs, nor the depth at O-line. Nor the overall speed of the 2009 edition on Defense.

When they play the games we will find out if this prognosis, shared by Vegas, and others beside myself, like Deon, is correct.

Where would you rate the 2009 prospective edition among the top ten Patriots teams?:snob:

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

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).

That was my favorite defense to watch in the BB era. In fact, their pass defense was so good that year, I was shocked if they didn't get a pick when it was 3rd down. Tyrone Poole and Law were the best tandem in the NFL that year. Although he struggled in the super bowl, Tyrone Poole played out of his skull that year. Teams tried to throw deep on him all year long but failed. Although they gave up 21 points per game, they notched 41 sacks and picked off a league leading 29 passes. This is the kind of defense that wins you super bowls.

 

[Deus Irae]

Thanks for the comments. I thought twice about doing this because I was afraid nobody would notice and I'd have wasted my time. Turned out it was fun anyway so it wouldn;t have mattered. But thanks for the feedback. How can I make it better--more accurate?

I agree about the special teams btw. Good point. Agreed about Hobbs as well. Bethel probably deserves a little more love based purely on his talents in the kick return game too. He averaged 28 years in 2003 IIRC.

Believe it or not I had the same thought about the longevity measurement and almost didn't use it. How would you differentiate between good and great without making it absolutely subjective? That's what I was having trouble with.

It's tough to give you criticism or tell you how to do it because you're basically in a position where you are 'inventing' a scoring system that's never going to work to everyone's satisfaction (the nature of trying to make the subjective as objective as possible is that some won't agree with you no matter what you do).

Really, the closest I can think of is something subjective itself, and that's to make it something like:

6. Good: ( Above average caliber NFL starter for a short time/ inconsistently)

7. Great: (Above average caliber NFL starter for a long time/Consistently, but not an All Pro) This could also cover a player who is significantly better than average but is blocked by the type of beasts that make it as 'All Pro'.

8. All Pro: (Recognized as a dominant caliber NFL starter (use the actual results and go with either 1st team or both 1st & 2nd team) and keep the residual effect to a minimum, meaning that an All Pro ranking in '00 might last for '01 and '02, but gets a short cutoff date). You might also go with Pro Bowlers that make the team prior to all the "I can't make it" stuff that happens every season.

9. HOFer: (Headed for Canton or already there, must still be playing at high level)

10. GOAT: (In the argument for Greatest of All Time, must still be playing at lofty level)

That would make Wilson a 6, Wilfork a 7, Welker an 8 and Favre a former 9/10 who's now a 6 or 7 (likely a 6 going forward and maybe heading for a 5 or lower season), .... and you'll still have players that required either your executive decision or a form of consensus.

It's a basic application of my general scale of all players:

Camp Fodder
Backup
Stiff/Situational player
Below Avg. starter
Avg starter
Above Avg. starter
Top end starter
Consistent top end/Pro Bowl/All Pro player
All-time Elite

adapted to yours, so I'm sure you could break it down and fit it much better than I did right there.

 

[maverick4]

The 2007 team shouldn't be the top all time team.

The 2004 or 2003 teams would have beaten the 2007 team.

Compared to those championship teams, the 2007 team had less talent at safety, running back, tight end, linebacker, D-line (Ted Washington > Wilfork) and kicker. The 07 team was better at receiver, but that didn't end up meaning squat at the end of the day.

 

[jmt57]

To Absurdly Metro:

Great work on those charts!


If there is one thing I would like to see in a future version, that would be a rating based on the performance of a player that specific year, rather than on his career. For example, Leon Gray and John Hannah had the same scores in '76 as in '85. Troy Brown was far more productive in '01 than in '04. The '05 team is not on here, but if it were Corey Dillon should not get the same score in '05 as in '04.

The definitions Deus suggested might be more accurate because they look at the performance and productivity for that season, rather than a player's entire career.

 

[Rob0729]

The 2007 team shouldn't be the top all time team.

The 2004 or 2003 teams would have beaten the 2007 team.

Compared to those championship teams, the 2007 team had less talent at safety, running back, tight end, linebacker, D-line (Ted Washington > Wilfork) and kicker. The 07 team was better at receiver, but that didn't end up meaning squat at the end of the day.

I actually kinda agree with you. I am a defense wins championships kind of person. The 2003 defense was the best the Pats ever had and better than many teams ever had. The 2004 defense was far better than the 2007 defense and the offense was still a top offense. It was the most balanced team the Pats ever had. The Pats' 2007 offense was one of the best offenses in league history, but the defense was average at best. Even if they won the Super Bowl, I would be inclined to put 2004 and 2003 over the 2007 season.

 

[TruthSeeker]

To boil it down to its essence, though, how about this: If Tyree doesn't catch that ball off his helmet, the Pats win the super bowl. If the Pats win the Super Bowl, are they the most talented team? If that's the case, then you're essentially saying that they can't be the most talented team because David Tyree made a helmet catch. That's just ridiculous.

Or even worse because a referee chose to not call "in the grasp" or "holding" on that play...

 

[BradyFTW!]

The 2007 team shouldn't be the top all time team.

The 2004 or 2003 teams would have beaten the 2007 team.

Compared to those championship teams, the 2007 team had less talent at safety, running back, tight end, linebacker, D-line (Ted Washington > Wilfork) and kicker. The 07 team was better at receiver, but that didn't end up meaning squat at the end of the day.

Definitely the best explanation I've heard for why it shouldn't be 2007. I still disagree with you, but you're starting from a solid premise and I can how you'd reasonably land at the conclusion that you came to.

 

[Deus Irae]

The 2007 team shouldn't be the top all time team.

The 2004 or 2003 teams would have beaten the 2007 team.

Compared to those championship teams, the 2007 team had less talent at safety, running back, tight end, linebacker, D-line (Ted Washington > Wilfork) and kicker. The 07 team was better at receiver, but that didn't end up meaning squat at the end of the day.

1.) By conflating 2003 and 2004, you're 'cheating' about the players. Washington didn't play on the 2004 team, for example.

1.) I don't see how you can make the claim about the tight end position in 2004, since Watson was out with injury as a rookie. I'd call it a wash, personally.

2.) You're notion about the running back spot is insane for 2003

3.) Gostkowksi was fine as a kicker in 2007, so any difference there is minimal.

I could go position by position, but in short, your argument just doesn't work for me.

 

[PYPER]

1.) By conflating 2003 and 2004, you're 'cheating' about the players. Washington didn't play on the 2004 team, for example.

1.) I don't see how you can make the claim about the tight end position in 2004, since Watson was out with injury as a rookie. I'd call it a wash, personally.

2.) You're notion about the running back spot is insane for 2003

3.) Gostkowksi was fine as a kicker in 2007, so any difference there is minimal.

I could go position by position, but in short, your argument just doesn't work for me.

Talent is nearly impossible to quantify but I agree that both the 2003 and 2004 teams were better than the 2007 team. The 2003 defense was a special group and by far the best we've ever had. It 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 lower any defense in the league since the 2002 Bucs. They were also 2nd in the league in defensive completion pct. While the 2007 team shared many of the same players (Bruschi, Vrabel, Seymour, Harrison), all of those players were were either in the peak of their prime or just a lot more healthier (Seymour). And let's not forget about the depth of that team. You have to go back to pre-free agency era to find a deeper team. Don't forget that the 2003 team had a pretty impressive season ending 15 game winning streak.

The 2004 team is a hard team to evaluate b/c the defense was devastated by injuries. Do we evaluate the roster in its healthy state or the roster as it was constituted for the playoffs and Super Bowl? When healthy it was easily superior to 2003 but with the injuries factored in I'd say the opposite was true. While still dangerous through the air, the 2004 team's primary strength was its running game. The 2004 team 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 2007 team was definitely the most talented offensive squad we've had, but their style of play wasn't as 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. Meanwhile, the 2007 defense would have had a much harder go against the 2003 and 2004 Patriots offenses.

Therefore,

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

 

[Deus Irae]

The 2007 team was definitely the most talented offensive squad we've had, but their style of play wasn't as conducive to winning.

They won 18 straight in a single season.

People here simply have lost their minds about that team, and it's sad. They've allowed 3 bad minutes to ruin an otherwise otherworldly season for themselves and for others.

 

[PYPER]

They won 18 straight in a single season.

People here simply have lost their minds about that team, and it's sad. They've allowed 3 bad minutes to ruin an otherwise otherworldly season for themselves and for others.

Yes and they lost to an inferior opponent that utilized a very similar style of play that the 2003 & 2004 teams perfected. If they could be shut down and beaten up by that Giants team, why would you doubt the same could happen against our 2003-2004 teams?

That type of style won't shatter any records b/c it shortens games but it also physically dominates opposing defenses so that by the time the 4th quarter rolls around the opposing defense is worn down and not capable of putting up much of a fight.

No one is saying that the 2007 team wasn't great. They were. Their accomplishments speak for themselves. But the same should be understood regarding 2003-2004. Those teams went 34-4 over two years which is the best two season stretch in NFL history.