Which great Patriots team was the best? (Poll Added)

[BobDigital]

Depends what you mean by best.. As in over the course of the entire season, as in was the best when entering the playoffs, a combination of both?

Over the course of the regular season 2007 was the most consistent... however while they still didn't lose, teams started to catch up them a bit after the first half of the season... And it only became more clear in the playoffs as all those games were pretty close and came down to the 4ht quarter. Clearly this team was not playing its best ball at the end of the year.

2004 on the other hand you had some major hiccups during the season which cost you games but overall there was more consistent dominance throughout the year. You were not exactly head and shoulders above everyone else at any one point, just consistently better the entire time and in the playoffs.

2014 was a bumpy year in the regular season at times as they went 12-4. Particular that first quarter of the year when Brady had a mini slump and they went 2-2 was bad. After that they righted the ship. After that the only game they really lost was to GB... Who was also a really good team. The other loss was the last game of the regular season which they didn't care about. But while this team didn't have one single strength that was overwhelming it had the feeling that either side of the ball could 100% carry the day in any game vs any team more so than another other team they've had maybe.

2016 would have been easily the team IMO if Gronk stayed healthy... Their D was just so damn dependable and with Gronk they had an amazing offense... Yeah they lost one of those first 4 games without Brady. Outside of that game they lost one in the regular season to the Seattle which was a very good team that year... still had much of that team which made the SB in 13 and 14 and almost went back to back. They were inconsistent offensively.... As Russell was hit or miss at that time, but he was on their game that day and with a bad fumble let in the 4th by Edelman it just got away from them and they couldn't get into the end zone. Amazing goal line stand by Seattle. This was their revenge game, and you just kind of felt it... So that one the one legit loss they had all year and the other team played their best game of the year maybe, they badly wanted it, and lady luck was not on their side. But overall this team may well have been their best. And in the playoffs they were so damn good. I don't know if any other team could have come back down 28-3... but their D absolutely locked down and the offense had enough play makers to get back in it. And keep in mind the D played well that game slowing down a very good offense and only allowing 21 offensive points.

As for the offenses in that game they had 6 drives in the first half... 2 were 3 and outs... but 2 more ended on turnovers... One they were driving on but started really deep in their own end and then a big sack derailed it. And then they scored a FG on another drive. Really though at least 2 more of those drives could have easily been at least FGs if not for bad mistakes. Their offense more or less moved down the field a fair amount, though the OL had issues all game vs a very tough pass rush which thankfully kind of got gassed due to all the passing they did.

 

[Brotherblues]

Aside from Andre Carter and Mark Anderson being great additions and both getting 10 sacks, their defense was still bad. I'd put them at #10 tied with 2010 as they were pretty much the team team.

They let the Giants hold the ball almost the entire game. The game wasn't high scoring only because the Giants milked the clock every single drive. Atrocious defense.

 

[TheRainMaker]

They let the Giants hold the ball almost the entire game. The game wasn't high scoring only because the Giants milked the clock every single drive. Atrocious defense.

This flies under the radar with many posters defending them saying they held the Giants from scoring most of the game.

The Pats margin of error on offense was dramatically reduced because the defense took forever to get the Giants’ asses off then damn field.

However, Brady deciding to throw a bomb to Gronk which resulted in an INT right after the defense got a turnover was a bone headed decision by Tom.

 

[Uptown]

So many, but ‘04 was simply the epitome of Patriot football (ALL things considered…toughness, attrition, sacrifice, will to win, versatility, played their best against the toughest opponents, not flashy, depth, FA acquisitions, leadership/accountability QB/HC masterclass, iconic/nostalgic moments) & capped it off with a Super Bowl victory.

 

[TheRainMaker]

So many, but ‘04 was simply the epitome of Patriot football (ALL things considered…toughness, attrition, sacrifice, will to win, versatility, played their best against the toughest opponents, not flashy, depth, FA acquisitions, leadership/accountability QB/HC masterclass, iconic/nostalgic moments) & capped it off with a Super Bowl victory.

2004 was the flashiest team of the 3 Super Bowl wins in the early 2000’s.

Their passing offense was better than people remember. Brady was slicing and dicing teams off play action and out of shotgun when necessary.

Defense was still ****y even with the injuries in the secondary.

 

[Ring 6]

I personally feel that the only reason there is a debate is because the 2007 team gave up the lead with 35 seconds left in the Super Bowl and never got it back. Would’ve been the greatest team in NFL history had they won, but instead are the greatest to fall short of that goal. It’s wild that the team I recognize as the greatest in franchise history, with all its accomplishments over the years, is one that didn’t get the Lombardi trophy at the end. But that’s what I truly believe. Played a lousy game by their standards, bullied all day at the line of scrimmage, and yet still put themselves in position to win the game in the final minutes. 2007 was truly special, even if it’s cursed.

If we’re only measuring by the six SB winners, I’ll say 2004 because they went through the toughest gauntlet of opponents in the playoffs I’ve ever seen a team pull off. All three opponents were wagons.

I don’t consider 2007 a candidate. The agree upon definition of the sport for “best” is the team that wins the SB. That is the ultimate goal.
For all of the arguments you can name for 2007 the only counter needed is that they lack the most important quality, being able to win the most important game.

It’s hard to choose because each team had its own strengths and weaknesses. 2003 for example was one of the worst offenses of the great Patriot teams, but all they did was win, and if I remember correctly beat more 10-win teams that anyone ever has.

2003, 2004, 2014 and 2016 are all in the argument. I think each of them would win 75% of the time if you were able to replay the season. 2001 and 2018 peaked at the right time but weren’t as good teams.

 

[signbabybrady]

I don’t consider 2007 a candidate. The agree upon definition of the sport for “best” is the team that wins the SB. That is the ultimate goal.

I think you make a very valid point but I don't think there is an agreed upon standard.

Someone else might make the case that the standard should be who wins if they played each other?
If you could line these teams up and play a 5 or 7 game series with your life on line who would you pick? Under this standard you still don't have to pick 07 but at least you aren't just tossing them out either.

It's clear you're not choosing 07 so I'm not going to try and convince you to change your mind but the poll right now has 07 as 2nd.

 

[Ring 6]

I think you make a very valid point but I don't think there is an agreed upon standard.

Someone else might make the case that the standard should be who wins if they played each other?
If you could line these teams up and play a 5 or 7 game series with your life on line who would you pick? Under this standard you still don't have to pick 07 but at least you aren't just tossing them out either.

It's clear you're not choosing 07 so I'm not going to try and convince you to change your mind but the poll right now has 07 as 2nd.

Of course there is an agreed upon standard. They play the season to determine a champion and the champion is the winner of the SB.

The NFL doesn’t play a 5 or 7 game series so these teams don’t exist in a reality where they matters.
Football teams exist to use the rules of the league to determine who is best.
Any subjective reasoning you want to use can’t overcome being best at achieving the singular goal of competition.

 

[Ring 6]

I think you make a very valid point but I don't think there is an agreed upon standard.

Someone else might make the case that the standard should be who wins if they played each other?
If you could line these teams up and play a 5 or 7 game series with your life on line who would you pick? Under this standard you still don't have to pick 07 but at least you aren't just tossing them out either.

It's clear you're not choosing 07 so I'm not going to try and convince you to change your mind but the poll right now has 07 as 2nd.

FYI you should know that 6 people using a different criteria of best than achieving your singular goal isn’t a reasonable argument to convince me my considered, thought out and supporter argument is suspicious.

 

[Lansdowne]

I don’t consider 2007 a candidate. The agree upon definition of the sport for “best” is the team that wins the SB. That is the ultimate goal.
For all of the arguments you can name for 2007 the only counter needed is that they lack the most important quality, being able to win the most important game.

It’s hard to choose because each team had its own strengths and weaknesses. 2003 for example was one of the worst offenses of the great Patriot teams, but all they did was win, and if I remember correctly beat more 10 win teams that anyone ever has.
2003,2004,2014 and 2016 are all in the argument. I think each of them would win 75% of the time if you were able to replay the season. 2001 and 2018 peaked at the right time but weren’t as good teams.

Okay so you’re disqualifying the 2007 team because they didn’t win the Super Bowl. If that’s your prerogative that’s fine. But I want to address the bolded part and follow up with this question: are you not convinced that the 2007 Patriots would win 75% of the time if they replayed the season?

 

[TheRainMaker]

If we're basing it on who the Pats played in order to win the Super Bowl then we're having a different conversation.

Top 5 hardest paths for the Pats who won the Super Bowl:

1. 2001: Raiders had a 10 point lead in the snow. It would've been a nightmare with clear skies. Pittsburgh was regarded as the best team in the AFC that season. Rams were by far the best team in the NFL and the Pats best Super Bowl opponent.
2. 2004: Colts should've taken them out with the injuries in the secondary. Went to Pittsburgh for the AFCCG where they were regarded as arguably the best in the AFC. Eagles were the best team in the NFC and the #2 best Super Bowl opponent to the 2001 Rams. I was really looking forward to Law vs Owens.
3. 2003: Had to go through "two" MVP's. I think McNair's was gifted. Titans were a good team though. Colts were clearly the 2nd best team in the AFC.
4. 2018: Going into the game, the Chargers were thought to give them problems. Going to Arrowhead is tough for any team and the Chiefs almost beat them. The Rams were wounded with Gurley's knees shot. Had he been healthy, it may have gone a different way.
5. 2014: Going into the game, the Pats should've had no problems vs the Ravens. Ravens made them sweat and should've beaten the Pats that night going up 14 points twice during the game. The Colts were crap in the AFCCG. The Seahawks were the #3 best Super Bowl opponent.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Okay so you’re disqualifying the 2007 team because they didn’t win the Super Bowl. If that’s your prerogative that’s fine. But I want to address the bolded part and follow up with this question: are you not convinced that the 2007 Patriots would win 75% of the time if they replayed the season?

People keep ignoring Brady's severe ankle sprain. Had Tom been healthy, he's not getting sacked as much as he did that night.

Defensively, Bruschi, Harrison and others have noted it got to a point where the team was playing not to lose because they were so paranoid of making a mistake. The pressure kept mounting up with each win. The intangibles you normally see with the Pats defense weren't there that night. Numerous INT's were dropped, Vrabel a punched away a Manning fumble on the ground after Thomas stripped sacked him and Pierre Woods gets a fumble wrestled away from him by a midget RB. Then you have Bill's blunders of not electing for a field goal at the Giants 31 yard line on 4th and 13 where Brady chucked it deep to Moss and him not challenging Woods' clear fumble recovery before Bradshaw took it from him.

Had they lost a game or two during the season, they beat the Giants in SB42.

 

[Ring 6]

Okay so you’re disqualifying the 2007 team because they didn’t win the Super Bowl. If that’s your prerogative that’s fine. But I want to address the bolded part and follow up with this question: are you not convinced that the 2007 Patriots would win 75% of the time if they replayed the season?

The 2007 team didn’t win the SB so it didn’t achieve the designation of best.
I was using that comment to say how I distinguish between the ones that did.

They are the best team to not win a SB.

 

[Ring 6]

If we're basing it on who the Pats played in order to win the Super Bowl then we're having a different conversation.

Top 5 hardest paths for the Pats who won the Super Bowl:

1. 2001: Raiders had a 10 point lead in the snow. It would've been a nightmare with clear skies. Pittsburgh was regarded as the best team in the AFC that season. Rams were by far the best team in the NFL and the Pats best Super Bowl opponent.
2. 2004: Colts should've taken them out with the injuries in the secondary. Went to Pittsburgh for the AFCCG were they were regarded as arguably the best in the AFC. Eagles were the best team in the NFC and the #2 best Super Bowl opponent to the 2001 Rams. I was really looking forward to Law vs Owens.
3. 2003: Had to go through "two" MVP's. I think McNair's was gifted. Titans were a good team though. Colts were clearly the 2nd best team in the AFC.
4. 2018: Going into the game, the Chargers were thought to give them problems. Going to Arrowhead is tough for any team and the Chiefs almost beat them. The Rams were wounded with Gurley's knees shot. Had he been healthy, it may have gone a different way.
5. 2014: Going into the game, the Pats should've had no problems vs the Ravens. Ravens made them sweat and should've beaten the Pats that night going up 14 points twice during the game. The Colts were crap in the AFCCG. The Seahawks were the #3 best Super Bowl opponent.

They played the best teams in all of those years.
My comment about 2003 was they were 17-2 with the most double digit win opponents in history (if my memory is correct)

 

[signbabybrady]

Of course there is an agreed upon standard. They play the season to determine a champion and the champion is the winner of the SB.

The NFL doesn’t play a 5 or 7 game series so these teams don’t exist in a reality where they matters.
Football teams exist to use the rules of the league to determine who is best.
Any subjective reasoning you want to use can’t overcome being best at achieving the singular goal of competition.

It's not feasible to play a series like that in football but playing a series is typically a better way to come out with a more honest representation.

Just to be clear it's your opinion that every single season ended with the best team winning the Superbowl?

 

[Ring 6]

It's not feasible to play a series like that in football but playing a series is typically a better way to come out with a more honest representation.

Just to be clear it's your opinion that every single season ended with the best team winning the Superbowl?

It’s the rules of the game. Since football can’t be played in a 5 game series the definition of the best football team can’t be the one who would win a 5 game series.
The quality that makes you the best is doing the things that achieve the goal. Bring the best at wining your way to, and winning the championship game is the most important quality.

Of course the team that win the Sb was the best team because the league determines its champion by who wins the SB.

 

[maust]

It's clear you're not choosing 07 so I'm not going to try and convince you to change your mind but the poll right now has 07 as 2nd.

 

[pazrul72]

They played the best teams in all of those years.
My comment about 2003 was they were 17-2 with the most double digit win opponents in history (if my memory is correct)

Youre mixing up 03 with 07. Part of what makes 16-0 so damn remarkable and way better then the porpoises is they beat 10 teams that made the playoffs.

 

[p8ryts]

Youre mixing up 03 with 07. Part of what makes 16-0 so damn remarkable and way better then the porpoises is they beat 10 teams that made the playoffs.

03 and 04 were both 14-2. Rosters were pretty much the same, Traylor in for Washington, Warren in for Hamilton.

 

[Ring 6]

Youre mixing up 03 with 07. Part of what makes 16-0 so damn remarkable and way better then the porpoises is they beat 10 teams that made the playoffs.

No I am not mistaken at all. The 03 Patriots best 10 teams that won 10+ games. 10-0.
You are mistaken however. The 07 Patriots beat 8 teams that made the playoffs and lost to 1.