Bold Statement: 2014 receiving corps is the best in franchise history

glm said:

Why do you keep on ignoring the fact that Brady had a sprained ankle in the AFC Championship and was not playing good (3 picks)? And he still had a sprained ankle and the o-line was getting murdered in the Super Bowl? Both of those will diminish a wide receiver's production. Your argument lacks context.

Edit: Randy was also going through that whole ******** sexual abuse accusations the whole postseason which more than likely distracted him from his game.

Click to expand...

Wasn't Edelman battling a hip injury towards the end of the season and possibly even into the playoffs? He and Amendola likely both sustained concussions in the SB. Stork missed a game and a half and likely wasn't 100% in the postseason.

The injury excuse seems weak.

Moss played in the postseason for us in following years and still didn't contribute much. Moss has had some spectacular performances in the playoffs in his career. but none of them came in a Pats uniform.

FourierSeries said:

Wasn't Edelman battling a hip injury towards the end of the season and possibly even into the playoffs? He and Amendola likely both sustained concussions in the SB. Stork missed a game and a half and likely wasn't 100% in the postseason.

The injury excuse seems weak.

Moss played in the postseason for us in following years and still didn't contribute much. Moss has had some spectacular performances in the playoffs in his career. but none of them came in a Pats uniform.

Click to expand...

Moss only played with brady in 09 after that, and that was not nearly as good of a team.

This postseason performance argument is so misleading. Brady had a record breaking performance against jags that year in postseason, cause they sucked. The other games were significantly harder than '14s in terms of strength of opp defense, and brady was injured.

Baltimores secondary is a joke this year, ravens fans would tell you (or you could look at rankings). Indy can't stop anybody (dallas murdered them, we did last 3 times. Can't stop run, can't score on us, total mismatch). And Seattles entire secondary probably shouldn't have played (and I'm not exaggerating, all have legitimate injuries that may require surgery) maybe that's why all of a sudden 14s postseason performance was better than 07s?

If you look at regular season stats...ppg, td/int, you name it and 07 dominates. Just in this small skewed sample that you insist on prioritizing to prove your point does 14 have the advantage.

14 wasn't more clutch or better on offense. They faced much weaker secondaries and Butler made a stop.

FourierSeries said:

Wasn't Edelman battling a hip injury towards the end of the season and possibly even into the playoffs? He and Amendola likely both sustained concussions in the SB. Stork missed a game and a half and likely wasn't 100% in the postseason.

The injury excuse seems weak.

Moss played in the postseason for us in following years and still didn't contribute much. Moss has had some spectacular performances in the playoffs in his career. but none of them came in a Pats uniform.

Click to expand...

So, losing your RG, your only blocking TE and your best blocking RB all while having an especially immobile QB compares to a few injuries that didn't force anyone out of the game - some of which are pure speculation on your part? That makes no sense.

But even if you completely disregard injuries, the simple fact is that the WRs weren't the primary reason for the neutered offense. Again, if you are going to play that card, then you must also admit that the 2011 secondary is better than the 2014 one since the latter allowed nearly 5 points more per game.

You can be proud of what this group accomplished without overstating their historical significance. Hell, understanding their accurate placement only makes what they were able to do even more impressive.

Oswlek said:

You can be proud of what this group accomplished without overstating their historical significance. Hell, understanding there accurate placement only makes what they were able to do even more impressive.

Click to expand...

You would think that people could be proud of this team without having to take the position of diminishing other teams of the past like (07,12,96,01 who were better). Some of you guys are so over the top homer ridiculous its actually taking away some of the enjoyment I have for this team.

I mean really? Is JE so worshiped by some of you that he is now in the discussion of best WRs of all time?

2014 proved to the world that they can win though no matter what. I also hope this team can win another soon and develop their own dynasty so they can be the legends like Brown, Bru,Harrison, WillieMac, etc. were in Boston.

You have gronk, edelman, and some bums but Brady is amazing and makes things happen.

We are not doing it big, we were better even just the last SB in 2011 with Hernandez was awesome and Brady the for over 5000 yards.

FourierSeries said:

Wasn't Edelman battling a hip injury towards the end of the season and possibly even into the playoffs? He and Amendola likely both sustained concussions in the SB. Stork missed a game and a half and likely wasn't 100% in the postseason.

Click to expand...

Tom Brady wasn't injured in Super Bowl 49.
None of those players in Super Bowl 49 were out of the game (like Stephen Neal was).

If the o-line can't protect our injured QB then the wide receiver's production will take a hit. Fact.

The injury excuse seems weak.

Click to expand...

No your logic is.

Moss played in the postseason for us in following years and still didn't contribute much. Moss has had some spectacular performances in the playoffs in his career. but none of them came in a Pats uniform.

Click to expand...

You are talking about one game (sample size be damned). And that was the worst game a Patriot TEAM has ever played in the Brady/Belichick era. Again, your argument lacks context.

glm said:

Tom Brady wasn't injured in Super Bowl 49.
None of those players in Super Bowl 49 were out of the game (like Stephen Neal was).

If the o-line can't protect our injured QB then the wide receiver's production will take a hit. Fact.



No your logic is.


You are talking about one game (sample size be damned). And that was the worst game a Patriot TEAM has ever played in the Brady/Belichick era. Again, your argument lacks context.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about Moss's entire playoff resume as a Patriot. Regardless, this isn't about one player. Moss is easily the most talented WR we've ever had. But again, our very own coach once said that it's about building a team, not collecting talent. Same goes for a specific unit. The 2007 receiving corps had a lot of individual talent that padded it stats against weak opponents, but failed in the postseason.

Your injury excuse is indeed weak. This year's team faced its share of injuries down the stretch.

The arguments in this thread defending the 2007 offense that failed in the postseason sound very familiar. They are the same arguments made by Peyton Manning defenders. Who knew that there were so many closet Peyton worshippers on this forum.

I'm honestly not sure I'd make the trade if jesus offered up our 2007 guys.

I can't remember if i already posted this, but if you exclude those first 4 weeks of the season and just look at the last 12 + playoffs, our offense was scoring at the same pace this year as it was in that record breaking 2007 season.
I like the versatilty, and I think these guys are probably better downfield blockers.

I can't really claim they're 'better', but I'm not complaining -- let's put it that way

FourierSeries said:

I'm talking about Moss's entire playoff resume as a Patriot. Regardless, this isn't about one player. Moss is easily the most talented WR we've ever had. But again, our very own coach once said that it's about building a team, not collecting talent. Same goes for a specific unit. The 2007 receiving corps had a lot of individual talent that padded it stats against weak opponents, but failed in the postseason.

Your injury excuse is indeed weak. This year's team faced its share of injuries down the stretch.

The arguments in this thread defending the 2007 offense that failed in the postseason sound very familiar. They are the same arguments made by Peyton Manning defenders. Who knew that there were so many closet Peyton worshippers on this forum.

Click to expand...

Your peyton argument is pretty stupid. Our offense put up the game winning touchdown in the superbowl in 07 with 2 minutes to go, just like this year. Our opponent had a miracle catch, just like this year. Whether Butler makes that play or not does not determine which offense was better, whether you think so or not. You're dismissing 07 like it was this year's broncos who flat our no showed.

Between that dumb argument and you failing to read how much weaker 14s postseason sched was, I think case is closed here.

FourierSeries said:

I'm talking about Moss's entire playoff resume as a Patriot. Regardless, this isn't about one player. Moss is easily the most talented WR we've ever had. But again, our very own coach once said that it's about building a team, not collecting talent. Same goes for a specific unit. The 2007 receiving corps had a lot of individual talent that padded it stats against weak opponents, but failed in the postseason.

Click to expand...

You are ****ting all over the 2007 Patriots. Padded it's stats against weak teams? They averaged 38.3 ppg against teams with winning records in the regular season. They scored 31 against the Jaguars with Tommy and his weapons putting an absolute clinic on them. The next game is when Tommy ****ed up his ankle and it showed (3 picks, 21 points). In the Super Bowl, not only was Tom injured but Stephen Neal went down early, and if you watched the Pats then, you would know that when Stephen Neal went out then the o-line would play much worse. Add that to the fact that the Giants had a team of pass rushing beasts (the Giants d-line in 07 ****s all over the 2013 Seattle D when it comes to rushing the passer), and the only logical thing to conclude is that the receiver's production is gonna go south. Bottom line.

Your injury excuse is indeed weak. This year's team faced its share of injuries down the stretch.

Click to expand...

None of those injuries were to Tom frickin Brady, so honestly you can just hush up with this.

The arguments in this thread defending the 2007 offense that failed in the postseason sound very familiar. They are the same arguments made by Peyton Manning defenders. Who knew that there were so many closet Peyton worshippers on this forum.

Click to expand...

Now it's the 2007 OFFENSE and not just the receivers. I'm thoroughly convinced that you didn't even watch the Patriots in 2007. If you did, then you would realize how great that offense, and it's receivers, really were.

What a joke and epic disgrace this thread has become. People are so insecure they have to completely embarrass themselves on a public message board and diminish amazing once in a lifetime accomplishments of former teams to make "their" team something more meaningful that it was. Its embarrassing to the forum and to the game.

glm said:

You are ****ting all over the 2007 Patriots. Padded it's stats against weak teams? They averaged 38.3 ppg against teams with winning records in the regular season. They scored 31 against the Jaguars with Tommy and his weapons putting an absolute clinic on them. The next game is when Tommy ****ed up his ankle and it showed (3 picks, 21 points). In the Super Bowl, not only was Tom injured but Stephen Neal went down early, and if you watched the Pats then, you would know that when Stephen Neal went out then the o-line would play much worse. Add that to the fact that the Giants had a team of pass rushing beasts (the Giants d-line in 07 ****s all over the 2013 Seattle D when it comes to rushing the passer), and the only logical thing to conclude is that the receiver's production is gonna go south. Bottom line.



None of those injuries were to Tom frickin Brady, so honestly you can just hush up with this.



Now it's the 2007 OFFENSE and not just the receivers. I'm thoroughly convinced that you didn't even watch the Patriots in 2007. If you did, then you would realize how great that offense, and it's receivers, really were.

Click to expand...

Right, I watched the 2001-2004, the 2005 team which suffered its first playoff loss under Brady, and the 2006 season where Brady took no names to the AFCCG....but then I just all of a sudden decided to skip the entire 2007 season. You're brilliant.

Posting stats against teams with winning records is deceiving. A team that finishes 9-7 isn't exactly a juggernaut. Also, teams within winning records can have porous defenses.

I'm glad you fell in love with the Star Wars numbers. I really am. For me, those numbers lost any significance once we lost the biggest game of the year and the receiving corps **** the bed in the postseason. The entire offense really, but mostly the passing game.

Bruins29 said:

What a joke and epic disgrace this thread has become. People are so insecure they have to completely embarrass themselves on a public message board and diminish amazing once in a lifetime accomplishments of former teams to make "their" team something more meaningful that it was. Its embarrassing to the forum and to the game.

Click to expand...

How is this my team any more than the 2001-2004 teams or the 2007 team or any other Pats team?

You're not making any sense.

It wasn't a once in a life time accomplishment actually. What we did in 2007 was shattered by another offense in 2013. Oddly enough, they had similar results in the postseason.

FourierSeries said:

How is this my team any more than the 2001-2004 teams or the 2007 team or any other Pats team?

You're not making any sense.

Click to expand...

And you are?

FourierSeries said:

Right, I watched the 2001-2004, the 2005 team which suffered its first playoff loss under Brady, and the 2006 season where Brady took no names to the AFCCG....but then I just all of a sudden decided to skip the entire 2007 season. You're brilliant.

Posting stats against teams with winning records is deceiving. A team that finishes 9-7 isn't exactly a juggernaut.

Click to expand...

They only played one 9-7 team (the Redskins) and they destroyed them 52-7.

Every other winning team had double digit wins. In fact they played every single team that had a record of 11-5 or higher (except the Packers) and scored an average of 32.4 points per game. That's 518 points in a whole season. Only an idiot would say the 2007 Patriots padded their stats against weak teams when they CLEARLY dominated the best teams in the league.

Also, teams within winning records can have porous defenses.

Click to expand...

So NOW you move the goal posts back to quality of the defense. Alright, I'll bite.

Against teams ranked in the top 10 in defensive ppg the Pats scored an average of 29.8 ppg. Or 477 points in an entire season. So they were spanking the best defenses in the league. That is yet another point of yours that has been thoroughly proven wrong.

I'm glad you fell in love with the Star Wars numbers. I really am. For me, those numbers lost any significance once we lost the biggest game of the year and the receiving corps **** the bed in the postseason. The entire offense really, but mostly the passing game.

Click to expand...

You are dense.

You conveniently ignored, for like the 5th time, that your argument has no context. You haven't even commented on how Brady playing at his absolute peak was playing with a sprained ankle AND the offense line was not protecting him. If the quarterback can't get the ball out, or makes a horrible throw due to pressure then the receiver isn't catching the ball. Bottom line.

If Tom Brady is 100% and Stephen Neal doesn't go out then you wouldn't be saying the 2014 team had a better receiving corp.
If the Patriots defense stopped the Giants on that last drive then you wouldn't be saying the 2014 team had a better receiving corp.
If Malcolm Butler doesn't catch the game winning interception on the 1 yard line then you wouldn't be saying the 2014 team had a better receiving corp.

I think you should realize that nobody is backing up your argument for a reason. We'll see if you can figure out why.

FourierSeries said:

How is this my team any more than the 2001-2004 teams or the 2007 team or any other Pats team?

You're not making any sense.

It wasn't a once in a life time accomplishment actually. What we did in 2007 was shattered by another offense in 2013. Oddly enough, they had similar results in the postseason.

Click to expand...

Similar results in the postseason? The Broncos got blew out by 35 points.

Also, the Broncos didn't play NEARLY as tough as a schedule as the Patriots did.

Do all of your arguments lack context?

glm said:

They only played one 9-7 team (the Redskins) and they destroyed them 52-7.

Every other winning team had double digit wins. In fact they played every single team that had a record of 11-5 or higher (except the Packers) and scored an average of 32.4 points per game. That's 518 points in a whole season. Only an idiot would say the 2007 Patriots padded their stats against weak teams when they CLEARLY dominated the best teams in the league.


So NOW you move the goal posts back to quality of the defense. Alright, I'll bite.

Against teams ranked in the top 10 in defensive ppg the Pats scored an average of 29.8 ppg. Or 477 points in an entire season. So they were spanking the best defenses in the league. That is yet another point of yours that has been thoroughly proven wrong.


You are dense.

You conveniently ignored, for like the 5th time, that your argument has no context. You haven't even commented on how Brady playing at his absolute peak was playing with a sprained ankle AND the offense line was not protecting him. If the quarterback can't get the ball out, or makes a horrible throw due to pressure then the receiver isn't catching the ball. Bottom line.

If Tom Brady is 100% and Stephen Neal doesn't go out then you wouldn't be saying the 2014 team had a better receiving corp.
If the Patriots defense stopped the Giants on that last drive then you wouldn't be saying the 2014 team had a better receiving corp.
If Malcolm Butler doesn't catch the game winning interception on the 1 yard line then you wouldn't be saying the 2014 team had a better receiving corp.

I think you should realize that nobody is backing up your argument for a reason. We'll see if you can figure out why.

Click to expand...

In 2007 against top 10 defenses in PPG in regular season + postseason, the offense scored 27.6 PPG.

In 2014 against top 10 defenses in PPG in regular season + postseason, the offense scored 29.6 PPG. (I left out the week 17 game vs Buffalo because the starters were out for most of that game)

So the offense performed better in 2014 against top defenses.

Since the discussion is about receiving corps, then you'll probably have to look into passing yards and passing TDs in those games. But given the lack of a consistent rushing attack in 2014 it's not a stretch to assume that the passing offense performed better in games against top defenses in 2014, considering the aforementioned data. The run game was MUCH better in 2007 than it was this year.

Those fluky plays you mentioned change nothing, because they don't add or subtract from the respective passing attacks.

FourierSeries said:

In 2007 against top 10 defenses in PPG in regular season + postseason, the offense scored 27.6 PPG.

In 2014 against top 10 defenses in PPG in regular season + postseason, the offense scored 29.6 PPG. (I left out the week 17 game vs Buffalo because the starters were out for most of that game)

So the offense performed better in 2014 against top defenses.

Since the discussion is about receiving corps, then you'll probably have to look into passing yards and passing TDs in those games. But given the lack of a consistent rushing attack in 2014 it's not a stretch to assume that the passing offense performed better in games against top defenses in 2014, considering the aforementioned data. The run game was MUCH better in 2007 than it was this year.

Those fluky plays you mentioned change nothing, because they don't add or subtract from the respective passing attacks.

Click to expand...

How in the hell do you ignore this YET AGAIN:

You conveniently ignored, for like the 5th time, that your argument has no context. You haven't even commented on how Brady playing at his absolute peak was playing with a sprained ankle AND the offense line was not protecting him. If the quarterback can't get the ball out, or makes a horrible throw due to pressure then the receiver isn't catching the ball. Bottom line.

Click to expand...

Until you actually address this, this argument is over.

It's no coincidence that the Patriots offense dropped off a fricken cliff once TOM BRADY got injured.

Bit old school, stats don't compare well but talent wise, I think the 1978 team would be a pretty good one. Stanley Morgan, Harold Jackson and Russ Francis with Sam Cunningham and Andy Johnson out of backfeild. That team still holds Team Rushing record in NFL, but I believe the receiving corp was underrated

2007 easily. The only reason this is being floated is because the team couldn't seal the deal in '07 and the '14 crew did. The '07 guys were explosive. We could destroy defenses with deep balls and the short game. The guys this year were more than reliable but not as dangerous as Moss and co.