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

[TecmoSuperJoe]

2 hours 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.

Baseball isn't football. There is no "best of" series. The sample size is way smaller.

The 2007 Patriots are still one of the best teams in NFL history. Better than a lot of teams that won a championship. Losing one game doesn't change that for me. 

[Soko]

29 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

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.

So yeah, that doesn’t really address anything I said though. You’re telling me how you and other people see it and that everyone just “knows it”. 

But how can you justify it? You’re telling me that the outcome of one play is the difference between “GOAT” and “not even in the conversation”. You’re saying that the 07 team goes from 1st all-time...to 53rd. And the outcome of a single play flips that. 

If the only argument is “hey man, they lost so that’s it” then that’s an incredibly weak argument. Does the best team always win? Not in football.

EDIT: I’m not even saying they’re the best team of all time or something. But they’re not invalidated from even being placed in the top, and especially not worse than every SB winning team ever.

[El Ramster]

2 hours 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 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.

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.

Damm imagine if we lost or tied in week 1. Dude would have called the rams a

turd bag lol. Rams won by 20 despite not playing their best game. They missed a FG and our all pro returner is out for a huge period of time. 

[Thomas5737]

30 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

So yeah, that doesn’t really address anything I said though. You’re telling me how you and other people see it and that everyone just “knows it”. 

But how can you justify it? You’re telling me that the outcome of one play is the difference between “GOAT” and “not even in the conversation”. You’re saying that the 07 team goes from 1st all-time...to 53rd. And the outcome of a single play flips that. 

If the only argument is “hey man, they lost so that’s it” then that’s an incredibly weak argument. Does the best team always win? Not in football.

EDIT: I’m not even saying they’re the best team of all time or something. But they’re not invalidated from even being placed in the top, and especially not worse than every SB winning team ever.

Not worse, but less accomplished than every SB team ever. That's what it comes down to. Not everyone will feel that way but there is a reason why Dan Marino isn't at the top of every QB list and it isn't because he wasn't good enough in the regular season, he was probably the best ever but he is lucky to be top 5 because of end results. You don't have to like it, you don't have to accept it but it is the way it is.

[Thomas5737]

58 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

Baseball isn't football. There is no "best of" series. The sample size is way smaller.

The 2007 Patriots are still one of the best teams in NFL history. Better than a lot of teams that won a championship. Losing one game doesn't change that for me. 

Well that one game they lost was a big one. If they lost in week 3 instead of the SB they would have a better argument in most people's opinion.

[Soko]

6 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

Not worse, but less accomplished than every SB team ever.

“Most accomplished” isn’t the discussion, though.

Quote

That's what it comes down to. Not everyone will feel that way but there is a reason why Dan Marino isn't at the top of every QB list and it isn't because he wasn't good enough in the regular season, he was probably the best ever but he is lucky to be top 5 because of end results.

Marino goes from GOAT to not in the discussion based on a single play? 

Quote

You don't have to like it, you don't have to accept it but it is the way it is.

So, again reiterating the “it’s just how it is” mantra. Good to know.

This is for you: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal-to-Common-Belief

[DingoLadd]

1 hour ago, jrry32 said:

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.

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.

Yes because wins show how good a team is, the AFCE was a much worse division last year (Than the NFCW) and they have 1 less win, wins aren't indicative of how good a division. 

1. Yes they are, many people expect them to win the SB or return to the playoffs so they're overrated young teams often fail to repeat the success of the prior year due to raised expectations and adjustments from coaching staffs that play them. Your run defense was atrocious last year because your LBs couldn't tackle and still can't, Suh wasn't a necesary addition because he's a much better pass rusher than he is run defender. 

2. Bodies to fill the gaps I assume? 

3. Exactly why you could've just re-signed Watkins instead of trading for Cooks. 

I think we're done here. 

 

[jrry32]

3 minutes ago, DingoLadd said:

Yes because wins show how good a team is, the AFCE was a much worse division last year (Than the NFCW) and they have 1 less win, wins aren't indicative of how good a division. 

How can wins not be indicative of how good a division is? What other measure are you going to use? The point of football is to win games.

Quote

 

1. Yes they are, many people expect them to win the SB or return to the playoffs so they're overrated young teams often fail to repeat the success of the prior year due to raised expectations and adjustments from coaching staffs that play them. Your run defense was atrocious last year because your LBs couldn't tackle and still can't, Suh wasn't a necesary addition because he's a much better pass rusher than he is run defender. 

2. Bodies to fill the gaps I assume? 

3. Exactly why you could've just re-signed Watkins instead of trading for Cooks. 

I think we're done here. 

 

1. Our LBs played into it, which is why we completely revamped the LB core. However, our biggest weakness was our NT getting pushed around at the POA. Suh is both a great run defender and pass rusher. He's a massive upgrade over Ethan Westbrooks (who is a good rotational 3-tech or 5-tech) and Tanzel Smart (barely on the roster). The Raiders have one of the best interior OLs in football and struggled to run on us. As for our LBs, Quinn struggled setting the edge last year. We replaced him with a committee who are quality run defenders (Longacre, Easley, and Franklin-Myers). Ebukam has made massive strides as a second-year player. We replaced Ogletree with Cory Littleton, who is an excellent run defender (but a coverage liability). Our run defense is a significantly better unit this year, and the scary thing is that our pass defense is significantly better too.

2. Guys who will set the edge in the running game, maintain gap integrity in the passing game, and bring consistent effort.

3. Cooks is a much better player than Watkins. I'm glad we moved on from Watkins.

Sure, we can be done here.

[lancerman]

12 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

Not worse, but less accomplished than every SB team ever. That's what it comes down to. Not everyone will feel that way but there is a reason why Dan Marino isn't at the top of every QB list and it isn't because he wasn't good enough in the regular season, he was probably the best ever but he is lucky to be top 5 because of end results. You don't have to like it, you don't have to accept it but it is the way it is.

Here's the flaw in your argument. Dan Marino was considered one of the best QB's ever. Many people did consider him the best ever and still do. BUT the ones that don't still regard him as one of the greatest ever. There's been 52 Super Bowl winning QB's. Most people regard Marino as better than Aikman who won 3 and Bradshaw who won 4. And also the majority of QB's who won Super Bowls aside from Brady, Montana, maybe Manning, maybe Rodgers, maybe Brees, maybe Unitas are considered worse than Marino. 

I've always had Marino top 5 on my QB list and a very large amount of people do as well. And no he's not lucky to be in that position. So for you to say "it is the way is" isn't even true because it doesn't really even hold that well. Like you do realize until Manning and Brady came around the GOAT conversation was basically Marino and Montana? Right?

And that's kinda where I see the 2007 Patriots. Like yeah I can concede the 1985 Bears or 1989 Niners ahead of them. But to be honest with you I watched 5 Patriots teams win Super Bowls, and only one of them has a real argument for being better, and I don't even know if I buy that.

[Thomas5737]

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

Here's the flaw in your argument. Dan Marino was considered one of the best QB's ever. Many people did consider him the best ever and still do. BUT the ones that don't still regard him as one of the greatest ever. There's been 52 Super Bowl winning QB's. Most people regard Marino as better than Aikman who won 3 and Bradshaw who won 4. And also the majority of QB's who won Super Bowls aside from Brady, Montana, maybe Manning, maybe Rodgers, maybe Brees, maybe Unitas are considered worse than Marino. 

I've always had Marino top 5 on my QB list and a very large amount of people do as well. And no he's not lucky to be in that position. So for you to say "it is the way is" isn't even true because it doesn't really even hold that well. Like you do realize until Manning and Brady came around the GOAT conversation was basically Marino and Montana? Right?

And that's kinda where I see the 2007 Patriots. Like yeah I can concede the 1985 Bears or 1989 Niners ahead of them. But to be honest with you I watched 5 Patriots teams win Super Bowls, and only one of them has a real argument for being better, and I don't even know if I buy that.

It wasn't just Marino and Montana but it was Marino vs. Montana because they played in the same era and 90%+ took Montana because of championships. Marino was clearly the better passer just watching regular season games. On a per throw basis Marino is still the biggest freak of a QB I ever saw play. None of the QBs you mentioned could make the throws that Marino made. If he played in this era with a decent supporting cast he would clearly be the best QB in the game imo. He was also the best in his era even if Montana was more accomplished but there isn't a Brady or Marino debate going on anywhere.

That Patriot team should beat a lot of championship teams imo. Marino should be better than any QB ever imo. Both were eliminated from a lot of people's conversation though because they failed the championship test.That Patriot team can be in the discussion for best offense ever or best passing offense ever. Most dominating regular season team ever. They failed to beat the Giants though so as unfair as it is to take major points away because they weren't champions it is done and done regularly.

[Thomas5737]

1 hour ago, Yin-Yang said:

1 hour ago, Thomas5737 said:

Not worse, but less accomplished than every SB team ever.

“Most accomplished” isn’t the discussion, though.

Quote

That's what it comes down to. Not everyone will feel that way but there is a reason why Dan Marino isn't at the top of every QB list and it isn't because he wasn't good enough in the regular season, he was probably the best ever but he is lucky to be top 5 because of end results.

Marino goes from GOAT to not in the discussion based on a single play? 

Quote

You don't have to like it, you don't have to accept it but it is the way it is.

So, again reiterating the “it’s just how it is” mantra. Good to know.

This is for you: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal-to-Common

I didn't open your link but I get the idea.

Okay, we shouldn't take anything away from the Patriots because of a single play so I'm sorry Giants but you didn't win.

A single play often means a lot. What do you think when I say Jim Marshall? A fantastic player or that dude that ran the wrong way? How about the 2007 Patriots? The greatest team ever or the undefeated team who lost the SB to the Giants? I personally think of the 85 Bears when I think the greatest team ever and a lot of that has to do with dominating in the SB as well as dominating in the regular season. The Patriots would be in the debate with a win and if they would have won the SB by 50 points they would be neck and neck with the Bears and probably ahead because of the Bears losing to the Dolphins even though the Bears were without their starting QB. Just the way it goes whether you understand it or not. Sorry Bears, no matter the circumstances you have a blemish on your record and the Patriots don't. Even though I think that 85 Bears team would have taken down the Patriots assuming both teams played well I'd still have to give the Patriots the nod because of a single game.

[megatechpc]

15 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

The OP wasn't asking if this Pats will ever do it again, he's asking if any team can do it at any time, ever again.

Yeah my bad, I totally misunderstood the question.  I'd say that its probably inevitable that at some point SOME team will eventually go undefeated again (we see 15-1 seasons fairly regularly after all), but it definitely won't be the Patriots (at least anytime soon).

[megatechpc]

15 hours ago, stl4life07 said:

The Rams are the perfect team to go 16-0. Last year the Rams was the 2nd youngest team in the NFL. They had the 2nd youngest starting QB in the NFL. They had the youngest NFL head coach in NFL history. They had all these new players, learning new schemes on both sides of the ball. On defense in particular, most of that side was a carry over from the previous regime who ran a different scheme thus alot of those players didnt quite fit the new scheme. Add to the fact that the team was learning how to win. That team won 11 games and actually left 2 more wins out there. I am talking about Kupp dropping the GW TD pass in Week 5 against the Seahawks and the McVay choosing to rest his starters Week 17 against the Niners. Those couldve been wins thus the Rams couldve been 13-3 last season.

Now this season the experience, the chemistry, and on defense its finally fixed to fit what Wade wants to do within his scheme. You add guys like Peters and Talib (you saw already them impacts they are making). You add Suh to go with Donald. Even though they didnt get a sack, they caused a very talented Raiders interior line to hold and have false starts because they werent going to let Suh and Donald kill their QB. Not only that but once Carr got hit by Donald he became skittish and it was over after that. You add Cooks who you saw his impact. He drew two PI calls in the 1st half to help the Rams move the football when the Rams were getting nothing in the 1st half as they was trying to shake off the rust for not playing a single snap in the preseason. We know what impact Zeurlein and Hekker makes on special teams. The Rams have the best coaching staff in the NFL when you think of McVay who is an offensive genius, Wade who is a great defensive minded coach, and Fassel who is one of the best special teams coaches in the NFL. So no matter what situation, the Rams have the talent and coaching to adjust as the game goes on and take advantages of types of situations. 

Now do I think the Rams will go 16-0? No. I think for McVay its about setting up for long term success which is for the playoffs. If the Rams are in position to go undefeated but have the top seed wrapped up I can see McVay resting his starters the last week of the season and playing his backups in spots more leading up to the last week of the season. Plus it is hard to go undefeated no matter what team it is. 

I'm still not convinced about the Rams myself.  Sure they beat the brakes off the Raiders in the second half on Monday, but its the talent-depleted Raiders we are talking about, and they actually trailed at halftime.  They are going to be facing much stiffer competition than the Raiders for most of the season so I am definitely not expecting them to go anywhere near undefeated this year.  They'll win the NFC West easily enough with between 11 and 13 wins, but no more IMO.  

I guess we'll see...

[Soko]

1 hour ago, Thomas5737 said:

I didn't open your link but I get the idea.

You don’t, actually. Because you continue to backup your opinion with the same notion.

1 hour ago, Thomas5737 said:

Okay, we shouldn't take anything away from the Patriots because of a single play so I'm sorry Giants but you didn't win.

1 hour ago, Thomas5737 said:

A single play often means a lot. What do you think when I say Jim Marshall? A fantastic player or that dude that ran the wrong way? How about the 2007 Patriots? The greatest team ever or the undefeated team who lost the SB to the Giants? I personally think of the 85 Bears when I think the greatest team ever and a lot of that has to do with dominating in the SB as well as dominating in the regular season. The Patriots would be in the debate with a win and if they would have won the SB by 50 points they would be neck and neck with the Bears and probably ahead because of the Bears losing to the Dolphins even though the Bears were without their starting QB. Just the way it goes whether you understand it or not. Sorry Bears, no matter the circumstances you have a blemish on your record and the Patriots don't. Even though I think that 85 Bears team would have taken down the Patriots assuming both teams played well I'd still have to give the Patriots the nod because of a single game.

Lol. So again, you bring nothing other than “this is just how it goes”. I’m literally asking you to explain a thought and you can’t do anything else other than just tell me “how it is”. 

 

[Thomas5737]

4 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Lol. So again, you bring nothing other than “this is just how it goes”. I’m literally asking you to explain a thought and you can’t do anything else other than just tell me “how it is”. 

You want me to tell you why a championship matters? If a play determines the SB then that was a huge play and changed history.

As far as why one play that determined a championship should change why an undefeated champion is looked at differently than a one loss team that didn't win a championship is quite evident. If that exact same Patriot team won 14 regular seasons games they would be looked at differently even though the roster and coaching were the same and they could potentially beat some championship teams. If a team couldn't win the championship in their specific year how are you going to convince previous champions who were able to win it that a team that lost the SB were clearly better than them in the on the biggest stage?