Will we ever see another 2007 Patriots team (16-0) again?

[Shanedorf]

16 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said:

You know that's not true. Every true NFL fan knows 16-0, in today's era, is special. Regardless if they added the superbowl. 

The true fan who started this thread goes by the name of "Championshiporbust"

Take it up with him. Unless you don't think he's a true fan.
The 07 Pats busted, as every true fan already knows.

[Hunter2_1]

9 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

The true fan who started this thread goes by the name of "Championshiporbust"

Take it up with him. Unless you don't think he's a true fan.
 

...eh? 

 

Edit: I see. Well, I'd question anybody that doesn't consider something which has only been achieved once in 1664 attempts (teams x seasons in the superbowl era) special. There's no way I'd swap our Superbowls for the 16-0 season, but that doesn't mean it wasn't special. 

[RuskieTitan]

1 hour ago, TankWilliams said:

If a team were to go 0-0-16, does that count as being undefeated?

Yes. Also winless.

[RuskieTitan]

On 9/13/2018 at 11:09 AM, Championshiporbust said:

Regardless of just winning the 2007 AFC championship and losing Super Bowl XLII (42) in one of the biggest upsets in sports history to the underdog New York Giants, the 2007 New England Patriots was one of the greatest football teams in history.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/9355518/nfl-2007-pats-wonder-been

Will we ever see another 2007 Patriots-style team again?

Is the question will we see another regular season undefeated but lose in the Super Bowl team? If so, eventually at some point it will happen.

If the question is whether we see another good team come up short when it counts, the answer is annually, after the Super Bowl ends.

[Soko]

3 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

You wanna be considered among the best, you need to win the Title. Otherwise, we're just handing out participation trophies.

So if Randy Moss caught the last Hail Mary for a TD, they’d be among the best if not the greatest ever? 

Go from easily in the top, if not greatest of all time team, to not in the conversation, based on a single play...makes sense.

[AlNFL19]

8 hours ago, LaserFocus said:

Where was that point differential against the Giants when it counted most? Tom Brady and Randy Moss are among the top five at their respective positions, but struggled that day. The 2007 Pats just didn't earn the right other teams did on the field in this narrow category.

This is exactly the argument that befuddles me. You can acknowledge that they are an all-time great team, so just because they didn't have it one day means they're that much worse? With one exception, every other team on your "greatest teams" list or whatever lost at least once. Being an all-time great team isn't just for Super Bowl winners to me, I think that's just an argument to say "what can we take away from the New England Patriots now?"

[DigInBoys]

Considering the NFL weights the schedules a good enough team with a weak enough schedule could definitely do it.

[Thomas5737]

2 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

So if Randy Moss caught the last Hail Mary for a TD, they’d be among the best if not the greatest ever? 

Go from easily in the top, if not greatest of all time team, to not in the conversation, based on a single play...makes sense.

It matters, it varies from person to person how much, but it matters.

The Braves won 14 straight divisional titles and were the class of baseball in that span but they only won once when it counted most so they are looked at differently than if they did win a bunch of titles. Bills went to 4 straight SBs, the results in those games are the difference between them being a historic franchise and a joke.

That Patriots team was one of the most dominating regular season teams ever. That is the end of the story though because they didn't finish.

[showtime]

I think we will.  In the NBA, there were plenty of people who thought we would never see any individual average a triple-double in a season since Oscar Robertson was the first and only player to do it in the 1960's.  People said the game has changed too much today for that to happen again.  Over the last two years, Russell Westbrook has done that.... which nobody would have ever predicted.

Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls held the record for most wins in a regular season at 72-10.  Most people thought that wouldn't be broken, but two years ago the Warriors went 73-9.

Will 16-0 in the NFL happen again?  Yes, it will.

[Soko]

7 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

It matters, it varies from person to person how much, but it matters.

The Braves won 14 straight divisional titles and were the class of baseball in that span but they only won once when it counted most so they are looked at differently than if they did win a bunch of titles. Bills went to 4 straight SBs, the results in those games are the difference between them being a historic franchise and a joke.

That Patriots team was one of the most dominating regular season teams ever. That is the end of the story though because they didn't finish.

But on a single play? It doesn’t make sense to me that I can change one play, and it goes from “GOAT” to “not even close”. I understand with the Bills, you can say something similar but not on that scale, as you have to A) go back and change multiple kicks, and B) even if you change a couple, they’re not in a GOAT conversation.

Can’t speak about the Braves as I don’t follow baseball all that much.

I mean, I get that you can go back to a large group of SBs and say “well if this one play changed, the results would’ve been different”. Like, a lot of them. But in that respect you’re looking at the result of a game, not the quality of the team. 

It doesn’t make sense IMO to drastically change your view on the quality of a team based on a play. I guess you can say that it’s not a single play, because any of the Pats’ previous drives could’ve resulted in more points but you get the gist.

[DingoLadd]

10 hours ago, jrry32 said:

The Rams didn't play in a terrible division last year. Even if the Rams overachieved last year, they brought in three All Pros on defense and Brandin Cooks on O. Overrated? They definitely aren't. *eyeroll*

Yeah the lifeless seahawks, rebuilding 49ers, Cardinals with no QB didn't make up a terrible division at all last year. 

The rams are clearly overrated, you added 2 very good CBs and a DT you didn't even really need so eh, your edge rushers are still terrible obviously Donald and compnay make up for that but still. Cooks isn't exactly the greatest WR (I mean he's been traded twice for a reason) I doubt he even leads the team in yards or TDs.

10 hours ago, FrantikRam said:

 

 

The Rams point differential versus their actual record indicates that if anything, they underachieved last year.

 

And the NFC West certainly wasn't the best division last year, but they were one of only two divisions that only had one team with a losing record - and that team won five straight games to end the season.

They didn't underachieve, they did exactly what they were going to do. Flop in the 1st round of the playoffs against a more experienced team, I'm sure with more experience under their belts the rams will improve (Coaching and player wise) but still I have a hard time seeing them repeating last year's success.

[Wyld Stallyns]

On 9/13/2018 at 1:16 PM, Danger said:

Nah they'll go 14-2 because they'll already have the #1 seed wrapped up after starting 14-0. 

This doesn’t work either, see 2009 Colts who also lost the SB

[jrry32]

58 minutes ago, DingoLadd said:

Yeah the lifeless seahawks, rebuilding 49ers, Cardinals with no QB didn't make up a terrible division at all last year. 

The "lifeless" Seahawks went 9-7 and beat the Super Bowl champion Eagles. The rebuilding 49ers sucked but not any more than a typical basement dweller. The Cardinals went 8-8. So no, it didn't make up a "terrible" division last year, and it's laughable that you'd even try to make such a claim. Let's compare wins by divisions:

NFCS - 37 wins

NFCW - 34 wins

NFCN - 34 wins

AFCE - 33 wins

NFCE - 32 wins

AFCW - 30 wins

AFCN - 29 wins

AFCS - 27 wins

It's amazing just how wrong you were.

Quote

1. The rams are clearly overrated, you added 2 very good CBs and a DT you didn't even really need so eh, 2. your edge rushers are still terrible obviously Donald and compnay make up for that but still. 3. Cooks isn't exactly the greatest WR (I mean he's been traded twice for a reason) I doubt he even leads the team in yards or TDs.

Let's take these point by point:

1. No, they aren't. We fixed our issues at CB, which allows Wade to run the defense the way he prefers, by adding two former All Pros. And yes, we did need Suh. You don't know the Rams at all if you think we didn't need him. Our run defense was atrocious last year because we lacked a NT who could stop the run. Suh completely changes the defense between Donald and Brockers. 

2. Our edge rushers are what we need them to be. 

3. Cooks doesn't have to be the greatest WR. He's perfect for the role he's being asked to play. Our passing game isn't designed to feed one WR.

There's no legitimate basis to your claims that the Rams are overrated.

[Calvert28]

6 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Sure. The Browns are going to do it this year and become the first undefeated team to miss the playoffs.

I would petition they be given an honor higher then the SB if they went 0-0-16.

[Thomas5737]

1 hour ago, Yin-Yang said:

But on a single play? It doesn’t make sense to me that I can change one play, and it goes from “GOAT” to “not even close”. I understand with the Bills, you can say something similar but not on that scale, as you have to A) go back and change multiple kicks, and B) even if you change a couple, they’re not in a GOAT conversation.

Can’t speak about the Braves as I don’t follow baseball all that much.

I mean, I get that you can go back to a large group of SBs and say “well if this one play changed, the results would’ve been different”. Like, a lot of them. But in that respect you’re looking at the result of a game, not the quality of the team. 

It doesn’t make sense IMO to drastically change your view on the quality of a team based on a play. I guess you can say that it’s not a single play, because any of the Pats’ previous drives could’ve resulted in more points but you get the gist.

There have been dominant teams that went 14-2 or 13-3 or whatever in the regular season and then dominated in the playoffs and SB. The Patriots won in the playoffs and were close in the SB and if they would have won no matter the score or whatever they would be seen a lot more favorable in most people's eyes. It didn't happen that way though. If a guy has a perfect game through 8 2/3 innings but gives up a couple hits and loses 1-0  it was still a great game but it isn't going down as an all-time great game. That is where the Pats are. Great team, dominant through the regular season but couldn't quite close out the game. We'll remember it but we'll also always remember that the Giants shocked the world and were world champions that year. They earned that title and there can only be one champion and it wasn't the Patriots so they have to be the best team to not win a SB and that is going to fall behind every championship team to some people. They know it. We know it. Everyone knows it. Otherwise it would be just a game.