Greatest Team of the Decade: Pats or Lakers?

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Determining the degree of taint is easy you start at the old balloon knot and measure to right up against the underside of the brain bag.[/QUOTE]

haha You are somethin else man

 

[TennesseePatriot]

This probably wasn't the best place to post if you wanted an unbiased vote. Pats all the way. Who are the Lakers?

 

[eagle eye]

This idiot being a case in point.

So I'm an idiot. My rofl was about the stupidity of a poll on this on patsfans.com.

Yes thats right, you are asking Patriots fans who they would pick and a sizeable portion of those fans are not only Patriots fans but Celtics fans also and who do the Celtics hate more than anybody else?

Stupidity is putting up a poll when the outcome is already certain.

 

[sanvara]

Four championships, three in a row and 6 finals appearances in 10 years. That's a little more impressive.

The Pats .706 vs. the Lakers .646 is significant--for an NBA season, that would translate to 58 wins a year vs. 53, a measurable difference.

Hard to compare regular season winning percentages across the NFL and NBA. I think if the top NBA teams played only one game a week, instead of 3-4 times a week (and often with back to back games), the better teams would have higher winning percentages as a rule. The NBA season is much more of a grind than the NFL season. It's easier for the inferior teams to get wins against better teams playing the NBA schedule. NFL teams have a week to physically, emotionally and strategically prepare to play each opponent. That favors the better team.

 

[IndyColtFan420]

What We Learned: Colts Are Team Of The Decade - Dennis Dillon - The Trenches - Sporting News

I say the Colts.

 

[taltos]

I voted for the Patriots because I think that playing a series of one or done games is more difficult than winning a series. If I were setting up the poll, I would have put the Red Wings in there since despite only 2 Cups, they were the most dominant team in hockey for most of the decade.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I'm really glad this poll is here. I mean, it's really important to get an objective view from objective people on important topics.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

What We Learned: Colts Are Team Of The Decade - Dennis Dillon - The Trenches - Sporting News

I say the Colts.

You and whoever wrote that are entitled to your opinions. Win a second Lombardi in the decade (i.e., this year) and I'll have an honest discussion with you about which team is the Team of the Decade (seriously, I mean that). Until then, the Pats, who have had their share of regular season success this decade as the article observes, showed what regular season wins were worth in 2007/08; not much compared to winning it all.

Regular Season records such as the Pats held and the Colts now hold are remarkable and very important, but they are also a function of opponents and scheduling. Championships are about putting it together under pressure and with everything on the line for three or four games in January against the best in the league. I honestly don't think there's any comparison between the two. But win a second Lombardi this year and we can talk about which is the Team of the Decade. For now, there's no real discussion.

 

[Mogamedogz]

I'd like to see the results of such a poll on NBA.com site vs a Poll on
NFL.com
Such a poll on a Patriots forum is just not rational if you expect it to
be anywhere near objective.

Before I opened the thread I said to myself... Gee... I wonder who is ahead is this poll..

I voted Lakers just because. :shrugs:

 

[aluminum seats]

So I'm an idiot. My rofl was about the stupidity of a poll on this on patsfans.com.

Yes thats right, you are asking Patriots fans who they would pick and a sizeable portion of those fans are not only Patriots fans but Celtics fans also and who do the Celtics hate more than anybody else?

Stupidity is putting up a poll when the outcome is already certain.

Actually, a poll is a mechanism for getting posters to make a selection and explain it. In the related thread, there were probably more Lakers' backers than Pats. While I acknowledged there are plenty of stupid Pats' fans, I wouldn't condescend to the majority and suggest they can't have a honest conversation about a fun topic.

 

[aluminum seats]

I'm really glad this poll is here. I mean, it's really important to get an objective view from objective people on important topics.

Um, none of this is important, you understand that, right? You've got over 4 thousand posts on a Pats message board, none of which has any meaningful impact anywhere in the universe.

Of course in your next post you wrote at length about the Pats vs. the Colts. But I guess that's "important."

 

[rabthepat]

Neither team was great. Losing Championships is unacceptable for great teams. The decade was devoid of any great teams.

 

[MaxVonDoom]

Neither team was great. Losing Championships is unacceptable for great teams. The decade was devoid of any great teams.

But you aint got no legs Lt. Dan?

 

[Jangles]

definitely won't be biased or anything posting this here

I imagine the laker fans would also vote for the Pats

 

[SeanBruschi54]

Its the lakers and its not even close

 

[Jangles]

Its the lakers and its not even close

you're the lakers

 

[MaxVonDoom]

Its the lakers and its not even close

I agree its the Lakers because they impose their will on others. They hold the other team down and dont take no for an answer. And then when the cops are called they change their story ten different times and buy their wives a diamond. Then in a plea agreement they give a half hearted apology/confession and are let free. Then they make a few baskets win a few games and everybody loves them and wears their jerseys again. And rape is forgiven and forgot. So if you are a Lakers fan then you basically are a supporter of rape, I bet your moms proud

 

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

In Act II of this decade - the Lakers were pretty bad. Outstanding in Act I, is ending Act III with a bang, but sucked pretty badly in between.

I have to go with the Pats.

 

[Real American Hero]

I think what the Pats did was more impressive. The Lakers have too many built in advantages that have allowed them to acquire talent no other team could - besides the obvious benefit to the Hollywood lifestyle and the exposure only available in LA and a few other select markets they very likely tampered and then circumvented the salary cap to get Shaq and got away with it and Gasol was a gift from Jerrry West. I don't even want to get into the screwjob the Kings got in 2002 - Game 6 was a travesty but their miraculous 20+ point comeback in Game 4 actually began with a late 3 pointer after the buzzer to end the second half - it took them the entire second half up to the final shot to whittle that lead down, had that shot been correctly disallowed its likely the Lakers are eliminated the next game.

Besides all of that, going back the past 30 years there are only a handful of teams that haven't repeated at least once after winning an NBA title and more than a few 3 peats.The league rules have always been favorable to teams retaining their top talent and rebuilding a down franchise can take years. The NFL rules have been tweaked to encourage parity and 1 year rebuilds. The Lakers did not have to deal with having their coaching staff raided once, let alone twice, nor their front office.

Also if the Spurs were to win it all this year which is admittedly not very likely they would have a pretty good argument for team of the 00's as well. They've been consistently very good to excellent, thrived in a small market and succeeded based on savvy management decisions rather than the luck of having free agents flock to the city en masse to scoop up the endorsement money that offsets the leagues maximum salary restrictions.

The Detroit Redwings have also been more impressive than the Lakers, imho.

 

[ausbacker]

You'd have to think the NFL team no matter who it was as there are more variables involved as opposed to basketball.