2001 Patriots Own a Peculiar Record

brdmaverick said:

I knew it wouldn't be long before someone took offense, and you obviously are free to have a differing opinion BUT please don't misread my opinion.

Nowhere did I say they had a **tty roster or that it was crap.

No team will win a Super Bowl with a **tty roster. This team won a Super Bowl. The context of this conversation is comparing the greatest Super Bowl winning teams of all time.

They are all going to be really good teams that played well together, had talent, and made the plays they needed to make when it counted most........that's a given. But this conversation is comparing those teams, and even though they are all great there are some that are going to be greater than others.

Sure, it's picking straws..........like comparing 20 different super models. The "ugliest" super model is still going to be an absolute knock out and worthy of magazine covers.

Just in a realistic fashion, if I take the last 20 Super Bowl winning teams, I'm finding it hard to find 5 that I would rank worse than the 2001 Pats.

The 2011 Giants is a given, and while I want to say the 2007 Giants that may just be my bias playing with me.

The knee jerk reaction is to say the 2000 Ravens and 2015 Broncos because their offense was poor, but in each case their defense was just so absolute, other-worldy that I would give them the nod, too.

2010 Packers, 2012 Ravens, 2005 Steelers - perhaps worth a conversation and could go either way. Perhaps worth a conversation, but still not clear cut that they are worse than the 2001 Pats.

That's the beauty of sports debates, nothing is ever clear cut and worth a debate, but yes, my opinion on this is that they are still one of the bottom five Super Bowl winners from the past 20.

Click to expand...

cmasspatsfan said:

I agree, they had a good defense but the offense under TB hadn't blossomed yet.

Click to expand...

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

A second reason would be the 2002 season was bad, and it seemed that the talent level was somewhere between the accomplishments of those two seasons.

2003 brought more depth and maturity, then 2004 added more pieces, including of course Corey Dillon. It's pretty clear that the sheer talent level rose from 2001 to 2004, by quite a lot.

But you're right in that NE wins are not often correlated to an overall roster talent advantage over the opposition. I would argue that the talent/versatility/contributions of NE players who you'd normally think of as being in the bottom 10 or 15 on the roster has consistently provided a clear advantage over other teams. Much more so than any difference in top-end talent, as judged by pro bowls, all league teams, etc.

Click to expand...

robertweathers said:

Yep.

I'll go on record and state the 01 team would beat 1/2 of the SB champs.

Click to expand...

One-Be-Lo said:

Ok I will prompt you, I'd like to hear 01 Pats vs 06 Colts

Click to expand...

brdmaverick said:

I don't find this to be surprising. If we're being realistic I'd say the 2001 Pats were one of the worst Super Bowl champs in at least the 21st century. I'm not saying they are THE worst, but one of the worst.

While many will take offense to that I don't think we should because in order to be on this list for consideration the team MUST BE A SUPER BOWL CHAMP! That's right, they were champs and as such should be celebrated for their accomplishments.

If we're looking at pure talent though, the 2001 team probably not at the standard of other Super Bowl champs. To their credit, they were a bunch of guys who played well together, got a few good bounces, and did just enough to win (and I am so thankful for that).

In the team's 3 playoff games, they had a total of three offensive touchdowns. I don't think we'll ever see anything like that again.

Again, not the worst, there were definitely a few teams that have them beat for that title (like the 2011 Giants). We should be ok with that though, they were still champs and I enjoyed the ride.

Click to expand...

robertweathers said:

01 had better receivers as well in a prime Brown and Patten.

Click to expand...

Pat the Pats Fan said:

i still get chills when I hear..."and now, choosing to be introduced as a team, the New England Patriots" Best superbowl TEAM ever....

Click to expand...

brdmaverick said:

Really? So now we are saying that Troy Brown and David Patten are better than Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne (two guys that will get Hall of Fame consideration)?

Click to expand...

Wheelman said:

I bet Keyshawn Johnson is still cursing the Patriots for that. I remember him lamenting the fact that kids growing up who dreamed of hearing their name announced at a Super Bowl no longer were able to experience that. Did they stop announcing individual player names the next season in the Super Bowl?

Click to expand...

robertweathers said:

I don't think the 06 team was that great. Manning played like crap that postseason. Pats 01 pass D was incredible.

01 had better receivers as well in a prime Brown and Patten. Smith was better than LoMo and sluggish Dillon

01 wins 20-16

Click to expand...

robertweathers said:

The debate is about talent.

2001 was a freaking talented team. History has proven it.

Click to expand...

cmasspatsfan said:

I agree but offensively they weren't the juggernaut they eventually become. They had clutch players on offense led by Mr clutch himself.

Click to expand...

Pat the Pats Fan said:

i still get chills when I hear..."and now, choosing to be introduced as a team, the New England Patriots" Best superbowl TEAM ever....

Click to expand...

aluminum seats said:

In retrospect, I’m shocked they let them do it. Funny to think of the Rams, they probably felt stupid they didn’t do it.

Click to expand...

bormio said:

I remember someone (and I cannot remember who) saying a bunch of players on the ‘01 team would not have made the roster on the ‘04 team - the upgrade in talent was that large.

Click to expand...

bormio said:

Did they let them? I thought the Pats said that was how it was going to be.

Click to expand...