Must Read Article: How the 2007 Patriots Changed Football Forever

[RelocatedPatFan]

Ooops, I don't know how I missed such a good article the first time. Sorry QM and thanks for the mods who fixed the redundancy.

I say better to have it posted twice than not at all

It was an excellent article.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Agreed. The article has made me feel much better about that season that i'd blocked from memory. Well done.

 

[mosslost]

The

What a great article.

As time goes by, for me the 2007 Pats are becoming the 86 Red Sox. Still one painful memory will never be forgotten but the good ones far outweigh the bad ones

The 2007 Pats are likely the greatest team in NFL history.

 

[mosslost]

FIVE (5) SBs and counting, and here are some of the regular season records of their "off years" in the same era.
16-0
14-2
13-3
12-4
12-4
12-4
12-4

2007 Best. Fluke SB loss, 16-0 TWENTY (20) PPG margin of victory.

 

[Bella*chick]

Best article ever. Still the NFL season I remember most.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The

The 2007 Pats are likely the greatest team in NFL history.

I want to agree but I don't agree

 

[mosslost]

I want to agree but I don't agree

fair enough. But how would you feel "if" Asante picked that ball, or if the D had just stopped them? (Try to answer without making fun of an "if" question seriously)

The fact is the champ is not necessarily the best team, and this clearly crosses years as well. Are the 9-7 2011 Giants better than the 2014 Seahawks, or one of Staubauch's Dallas teams that lost to the Steelers? They are definitely not.

The same logic would essentially (kind of) make all Super Bowl losers "equal" to each other. It is the exact same logic. 1996 Pats same as 2007 Pats and so on. That is why those new fangled web sites all come up with the 2007 Patriots as best ever. Single elimination playoffs **** can happen.

2007 Pats are for the most part unrivaled. (20 PPG win differential, 35 through the first 10 games)

The Lombardi gets given out to some team every year. 2015 Broncos superior to 2007 Pats? Nope. Not even close in fact.

 

[n6249c]

The

The 2007 Pats are likely the greatest team in NFL history.

Second only to the 2017 Patriots.

 

[RobertWeathers]

fair enough. But how would you feel "if" Asante picked that ball, or if the D had just stopped them? (Try to answer without making fun of an "if" question seriously)

The fact is the champ is not necessarily the best team, and this clearly crosses years as well. Are the 9-7 2011 Giants better than the 2014 Seahawks, or one of Staubauch's Dallas teams that lost to the Steelers? They are definitely not.

The same logic would essentially (kind of) make all Super Bowl losers "equal" to each other. It is the exact same logic. 1996 Pats same as 2007 Pats and so on. That is why those new fangled web sites all come up with the 2007 Patriots as best ever. Single elimination playoffs **** can happen.

2007 Pats are for the most part unrivaled. (20 PPG win differential, 35 through the first 10 games)

The Lombardi gets given out to some team every year. 2015 Broncos superior to 2007 Pats? Nope. Not even close in fact.

So you threw a couple of good thought-provoking comments in here...

Clearly there were teams that lost the Super Bowl which were better than teams that won the Super Bowl. No argument there. The 07 Pats are certainly one of those "better" teams so just because they won a SB, there is no way in hell the 2015 Donkeys, 07 or 11 Giants are better than the 07 Pats. So in a hypothetical ranking, I'd have to rank teams like the 78 Steelers or 1984 or 1989 49ers or 1985 Bears as better teams because they won the title.

For me, winning a title is a prerequisite to attaining GoAT status and impossible for me to justify without one. Is it a bit absurd that a ref blew a holding call on O'Hara or A$ante had K-Y on hands or Tyree made a pact with the Devil should be reasons to deny the 07 Pats GoAT status? Yes and I acknowledge its cruel, harsh and somewhat illogical but it's the way I see it. In my view GoAT teams need to win then they MUST win and for whatever reason be it luck, injuries, BS calls, etc it doesn't matter to me. They just didn't make it happen.

I freely admit if they won that game......Automatic GoAT in my book but such as it is with sports, the counter-argument is the same as it is for the 1972 Dolphins. Just because they went undefeated, I don't consider them a better, or talented team than the '89 49ers and you can certainly argue the 89 49ers were better than the 07 Pats just as you can the 07 Pats were better than the 89 49ers even though they won a SB.

 

[mosslost]

So you threw a couple of good thought-provoking comments in here...

Clearly there were teams that lost the Super Bowl which were better than teams that won the Super Bowl. No argument there. The 07 Pats are certainly one of those "better" teams so just because they won a SB, there is no way in hell the 2015 Donkeys, 07 or 11 Giants are better than the 07 Pats. So in a hypothetical ranking, I'd have to rank teams like the 78 Steelers or 1984 or 1989 49ers or 1985 Bears as better teams because they won the title.

For me, winning a title is a prerequisite to attaining GoAT status and impossible for me to justify without one. Is it a bit absurd that a ref blew a holding call on O'Hara or A$ante had K-Y on hands or Tyree made a pact with the Devil should be reasons to deny the 07 Pats GoAT status? Yes and I acknowledge its cruel, harsh and somewhat illogical but it's the way I see it. In my view GoAT teams need to win then they MUST win and for whatever reason be it luck, injuries, BS calls, etc it doesn't matter to me. They just didn't make it happen.

I freely admit if they won that game......Automatic GoAT in my book but such as it is with sports, the counter-argument is the same as it is for the 1972 Dolphins. Just because they went undefeated, I don't consider them a better, or talented team than the '89 49ers and you can certainly argue the 89 49ers were better than the 07 Pats just as you can the 07 Pats were better than the 89 49ers even though they won a SB.

Thank you for a well written response. Unlike many others you admit that there is some cloudiness to how you rate a team. The championship (or lack of it) is what actually clouds the idea of who was "better" in these cases. Different sport example, the 85 and 87 Celtics were better than the 81 Celtics. (Or the 79 Sonics or Bullets, whichever team was the winner)

The reason the ELO ranking systems does not care at all about who won the Super Bowl in determining who is "better" or even "best ever" is mostly due to single elimination. It takes into consideration, when it comes to wins and losses, just the record. And the 2007 Pats were 18-1, the best patriots team of all time.

The other thing it does is crunch numbers. The Patriots in 2007 usually destroyed all comers, most of their opponents. They had the number 1 ranked offense and like the 4th ranked defense. The won by an average margin of victory of 20PPG, which is astounding. The ELO ranking system has the 2007 Pats as number one "BEST" team of all time. It ranks the Super Bowl Champion 2004 Pats as the 4th Greatest team of all time.

I get what you are saying about GOAT being need the trophy, and believe me I LIVE for the Patriots winning the Super Bowl. But winning that one game does NOT (and this is a fact) determine which team is truly BETTER. It proves who played better and was better on that one game and day. That is one of the great things about football actually.

If the 2001 Pats (ranked number 338 ALL TIME by ELO) had played the 2001 Rams 10 weeks in a row what would the 2 teams records have been against each other? That is part of why makes football so exciting. BUT that one game, does not determine the better team, some of the time. (Obviously a lot of the time, the better team does win.)

 

[mosslost]

So you threw a couple of good thought-provoking comments in here...

Clearly there were teams that lost the Super Bowl which were better than teams that won the Super Bowl. No argument there. The 07 Pats are certainly one of those "better" teams so just because they won a SB, there is no way in hell the 2015 Donkeys, 07 or 11 Giants are better than the 07 Pats. So in a hypothetical ranking, I'd have to rank teams like the 78 Steelers or 1984 or 1989 49ers or 1985 Bears as better teams because they won the title.

For me, winning a title is a prerequisite to attaining GoAT status and impossible for me to justify without one. Is it a bit absurd that a ref blew a holding call on O'Hara or A$ante had K-Y on hands or Tyree made a pact with the Devil should be reasons to deny the 07 Pats GoAT status? Yes and I acknowledge its cruel, harsh and somewhat illogical but it's the way I see it. In my view GoAT teams need to win then they MUST win and for whatever reason be it luck, injuries, BS calls, etc it doesn't matter to me. They just didn't make it happen.

I freely admit if they won that game......Automatic GoAT in my book but such as it is with sports, the counter-argument is the same as it is for the 1972 Dolphins. Just because they went undefeated, I don't consider them a better, or talented team than the '89 49ers and you can certainly argue the 89 49ers were better than the 07 Pats just as you can the 07 Pats were better than the 89 49ers even though they won a SB.

>>I'd have to rank teams like the 78 Steelers or 1984 or 1989 49ers or 1985 Bears as better teams because they won the title.

OK. I agree with you here, because you are using good logic. All four of these teams are champs, TWO of them (85 Bears and 84 9'ers were also 18-1 , same as 2007 Pats (only three teams in NFL history to go 18-1) and the other 2 teams 78 Steelers and 1989 9'ers were 17-2 and dominant and won the Super Bowl.

So, releasing my Pats Bias I would put the Pats 2007 at #5 behind those 4 teams. The Pats are ranked higher by ELO simply because they destroyed their opponents much more thoroughly.
(This would also cause me to put 2004 and 2017 ahead of them, but when I think of "better" in the case of the Pats only I put 2007 at the top)

 

[RobertWeathers]

Thank you for a well written response. Unlike many others you admit that there is some cloudiness to how you rate a team. The championship (or lack of it) is what actually clouds the idea of who was "better" in these cases. Different sport example, the 85 and 87 Celtics were better than the 81 Celtics. (Or the 79 Sonics or Bullets, whichever team was the winner)

The reason the ELO ranking systems does not care at all about who won the Super Bowl in determining who is "better" or even "best ever" is mostly due to single elimination. It takes into consideration, when it comes to wins and losses, just the record. And the 2007 Pats were 18-1, the best patriots team of all time.

The other thing it does is crunch numbers. The Patriots in 2007 usually destroyed all comers, most of their opponents. They had the number 1 ranked offense and like the 4th ranked defense. The won by an average margin of victory of 20PPG, which is astounding. The ELO ranking system has the 2007 Pats as number one "BEST" team of all time. It ranks the Super Bowl Champion 2004 Pats as the 4th Greatest team of all time.

I get what you are saying about GOAT being need the trophy, and believe me I LIVE for the Patriots winning the Super Bowl. But winning that one game does NOT (and this is a fact) determine which team is truly BETTER. It proves who played better and was better on that one game and day. That is one of the great things about football actually.

If the 2001 Pats (ranked number 338 ALL TIME by ELO) had played the 2001 Rams 10 weeks in a row what would the 2 teams records have been against each other? That is part of why makes football so exciting. BUT that one game, does not determine the better team, some of the time. (Obviously a lot of the time, the better team does win.)

The 07 team was most likely the best NEP team but I think the 04 or even the 2014 team would beat them a few times.

It drives me nuts how disrespected the 01 team is. Granted the 01 Rams were better bunch but the talent was young and still improving. As the 2000s have shown, there was greatness sprinkled throughout the roster.

 

[RobertWeathers]

>>I'd have to rank teams like the 78 Steelers or 1984 or 1989 49ers or 1985 Bears as better teams because they won the title.

OK. I agree with you here, because you are using good logic. All four of these teams are champs, TWO of them (85 Bears and 84 9'ers were also 18-1 , same as 2007 Pats (only three teams in NFL history to go 18-1) and the other 2 teams 78 Steelers and 1989 9'ers were 17-2 and dominant and won the Super Bowl.

So, releasing my Pats Bias I would put the Pats 2007 at #5 behind those 4 teams. The Pats are ranked higher by ELO simply because they destroyed their opponents much more thoroughly.
(This would also cause me to put 2004 and 2017 ahead of them, but when I think of "better" in the case of the Pats only I put 2007 at the top)

Nothing wrong with being biased.

 

[mosslost]

The 07 team was most likely the best NEP team but I think the 04 or even the 2014 team would beat them a few times.

It drives me nuts how disrespected the 01 team is. Granted the 01 Rams were better bunch but the talent was young and still improving. As the 2000s have shown, there was greatness sprinkled throughout the roster.

That day, Super Bowl 36, the Pats out coached, out played, and out "wanted" that win, and also were the ones who took the opponent ridiculously seriously, where the Rams literally thought the game was going to be a coronation. (All the players and coaches)

 

[mosslost]

fair enough. But how would you feel "if" Asante picked that ball, or if the D had just stopped them? (Try to answer without making fun of an "if" question seriously)

The fact is the champ is not necessarily the best team, and this clearly crosses years as well. Are the 9-7 2011 Giants better than the 2014 Seahawks, or one of Staubauch's Dallas teams that lost to the Steelers? They are definitely not.

The same logic would essentially (kind of) make all Super Bowl losers "equal" to each other. It is the exact same logic. 1996 Pats same as 2007 Pats and so on. That is why those new fangled web sites all come up with the 2007 Patriots as best ever. Single elimination playoffs **** can happen.

2007 Pats are for the most part unrivaled. (20 PPG win differential, 35 through the first 10 games)

The Lombardi gets given out to some team every year. 2015 Broncos superior to 2007 Pats? Nope. Not even close in fact.

Also, unless someone goes 19-0 someday.. The Pats will always hold the longest win streak in one NFL season at 18.. unless someone ties them or goes 19-0. (both scenarios highly unlikely unless the Pats go for it this year.) 18 wins in a row with 20 PPG win margin ridiculous.