Are the Pats really that good or is everyone else really bad?

[Toro]

They certainly aren't cheating now.

And they may go down as the best team of all time if they keep this up.

 

[maineman]

Bottom line. They got caught cheating.

That may be YOUR bottom line....mine is that they are awesome and nobody stands a chance against them. They embarrass everyone they play.

everyone.

 

[Gunny]

They certainly aren't cheating now.

And they may go down as the best team of all time if they keep this up.

THAT is a completely different argument, and one on which it probably depends on how old you are whether or not you are agreed with.

You've got the Packers, Steelers, Dolphins, Cowboys and 49ers that would be more than happy to argue the point.

A single, undefeated season does not a "best team in history" make. As it stands the aforementioned teams dominated DECADES, not just seasons, with the exception of Miami.

One could make the argument that the Patriots belong in that group, but not that they are better.

 

[maineman]

THAT is a completely different argument, and one on which it probably depends on how old you are whether or not you are agreed with.

You've got the Packers, Steelers, Dolphins, Cowboys and 49ers that would be more than happy to argue the point.

A single, undefeated season does not a "best team in history" make. As it stands the aforementioned teams dominated DECADES, not just seasons, with the exception of Miami.

One could make the argument that the Patriots belong in that group, but not that they are better.

I do not recall any of those other teams dominating all of the opponents to the extent that the Pats have, however.

 

[Shogun]

THAT is a completely different argument, and one on which it probably depends on how old you are whether or not you are agreed with.

You've got the Packers, Steelers, Dolphins, Cowboys and 49ers that would be more than happy to argue the point.

A single, undefeated season does not a "best team in history" make. As it stands the aforementioned teams dominated DECADES, not just seasons, with the exception of Miami.

One could make the argument that the Patriots belong in that group, but not that they are better.

indeed. and even miami's perfect season was the product of a few other half assed teams playing second string QB's. I love the 'phins but they certainly are not the greatest team ever after a perfect season.



oh.. ps..



fuck the patriots.

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

oh.. ps..



fuck the patriots.

haha, agree

 

[Toro]

THAT is a completely different argument, and one on which it probably depends on how old you are whether or not you are agreed with.

You've got the Packers, Steelers, Dolphins, Cowboys and 49ers that would be more than happy to argue the point.

A single, undefeated season does not a "best team in history" make. As it stands the aforementioned teams dominated DECADES, not just seasons, with the exception of Miami.

One could make the argument that the Patriots belong in that group, but not that they are better.

I don't think any of those teams dominated for decades. The Steelers won their titles in six years in the 1970s. Montana and the 49ers won his in the 1980s while Young won one in the 1990s. The Cowboys won 2 in the 1970s, sucked real bad for a while, then won 3 in the 1990s. The Packers of the 1960s was before my time, let alone the Browns.

The best team I ever saw was the (I think) 1988-89 49ers, who beat the Vikings 43-17, the Rams 30-3 and the Broncos 55-10 in the playoffs and went 18-1. The Bears had the best defense I ever saw.

This stuff about the cheating is overblown since most other teams do it too.

So, if the Pats win their fourth Super Bowl, and go undefeated, that matches what those other teams did in similar time frames - except that none of them went undefeated. The only other difference is that New England has done it under the cap, which the other teams never had to deal with. Teams like the 49ers and Cowboys used to stockpile players. You couldn't do that in the era of the cap. And I've never seen any team do what they are doing now, scoring 40 points a game against almost anybody.

 

[Gunny]

I do not recall any of those other teams dominating all of the opponents to the extent that the Pats have, however.

The 70s Steelers beat EVERYBODY up. They mauled them in a way the Pats don't even come close.

And just to introduce another controversial factor ... the Steelers in the 70s had tougher teams to play than the Pats do now. Three of the four teams in the AFC central back then were contenders ... then you had the Dolphins, Raiders, both SB contenders and both winning Superbowls during that era.

I'll take the 70s Steelers, or the mid-60s Cowboys and Packers over anything stepping on the field today. They would crush these pantywaists that call themselves football players.

 

[Gunny]

I don't think any of those teams dominated for decades. The Steelers won their titles in six years in the 1970s. Montana and the 49ers won his in the 1980s while Young won one in the 1990s. The Cowboys won 2 in the 1970s, sucked real bad for a while, then won 3 in the 1990s. The Packers of the 1960s was before my time, let alone the Browns.

The best team I ever saw was the (I think) 1988-89 49ers, who beat the Vikings 43-17, the Rams 30-3 and the Broncos 55-10 in the playoffs and went 18-1. The Bears had the best defense I ever saw.

This stuff about the cheating is overblown since most other teams do it too.

So, if the Pats win their fourth Super Bowl, and go undefeated, that matches what those other teams did in similar time frames - except that none of them went undefeated. The only other difference is that New England has done it under the cap, which the other teams never had to deal with. Teams like the 49ers and Cowboys used to stockpile players. You couldn't do that in the era of the cap. And I've never seen any team do what they are doing now, scoring 40 points a game against almost anybody.

Dallas, SF, and Pittsburgh have all won a SB under the cap. I disagree about what you can do with or without the cap.

Oh, and Dallas went to 5 Superbowls in the 70s, and they sucked for a very short period of time, twice since the team came into existence. They have been one of the most successful franchises ever. I hardly call playing in half of the Superbowls not dominating.

The Steelers only missed the 76 SB because of injury to key players.

But I DO recall when the Pats were perennial year-in year-out doormats ... for decades.

Your salary cap deal is your undoing in this argument. Had the Pats done this in the 60s or 70s I'd rate them higher. The cap ushered in the era of mediocrity and being at the top of the mediocre list is hardly something to brag about, IMO.

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

The 70s Steelers beat EVERYBODY up. They mauled them in a way the Pats don't even come close.

And just to introduce another controversial factor ... the Steelers in the 70s had tougher teams to play than the Pats do now. Three of the four teams in the AFC central back then were contenders ... then you had the Dolphins, Raiders, both SB contenders and both winning Superbowls during that era.

I'll take the 70s Steelers, or the mid-60s Cowboys and Packers over anything stepping on the field today. They would crush these pantywaists that call themselves football players.

I agree. There are so many teams throughout history that are better than the Patriots of today.

 

[Paulie]

THAT is a completely different argument, and one on which it probably depends on how old you are whether or not you are agreed with.

You've got the Packers, Steelers, Dolphins, Cowboys and 49ers that would be more than happy to argue the point.

A single, undefeated season does not a "best team in history" make. As it stands the aforementioned teams dominated DECADES, not just seasons, with the exception of Miami.

One could make the argument that the Patriots belong in that group, but not that they are better.

I believe by "best team", people mean best SINGLE SEASON team.

At least, that's how I would rate the Pats this year should they go undefeated, and win the superbowl. Obviously, only a superbowl to end the season could justify that distinction anyway.

By the way, I'm an Eagles fan guys, and I'm putting a * next to the score of Superbowl XXXIX

Payback time this sunday! (yeah, right)

 

[Gunny]

indeed. and even miami's perfect season was the product of a few other half assed teams playing second string QB's. I love the 'phins but they certainly are not the greatest team ever after a perfect season.



oh.. ps..



fuck the patriots.

Well, guess what ... Most of Miami's season was QB'd by Earl Morrall. Griese was hurt and didn't come back until the first playoff game.

And they played the Steelers who were one year away from the first of 2 SB wins. They played the Bills twice when they had Ferguson as QB and OJ and Braxton in the backfield. NE had Plunkett at QB. The Colts were the crummiest of the AFC East. Then there were the Bengals and Browns, and Raiders, all playoff contenders. I wouldn't call Ken Anderson and Ken Stabler second string. Both took their teams to SB's.

They also went to 3 SBs in a row ... that being mostly forgotten because they lost the first to the Cowboys.

 

[Gunny]

I agree. There are so many teams throughout history that are better than the Patriots of today.

I really don't think they're "better." That was not my intent, anyway.

But first, we're putting the cart WAY before the horse. The season isn't over.

I think overall, even with a loss between now and then, if the Patriots win the SB they can easily be considered among those great teams. But better? Not unless you can put the 1975 Steelers on the field against them and prove it.

Then I want to see them play the 1966-67 Packers.

Then the 1971 Dallas Cowboys or the 1992 Cowboys

Or the 1980 Raiders

I watched them play the 72 Dolphins twice.

But I liken this argument to my contention that Muhammed Ali in his prime would have creamed Mike Tyson in his prime. If you can't put them in the ring, it'll always be an argument.

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

I really don't think they're "better." That was not my intent, anyway.

But first, we're putting the cart WAY before the horse. The season isn't over.

I think overall, even with a loss between now and then, if the Patriots win the SB they can easily be considered among those great teams. But better? Not unless you can put the 1975 Steelers on the field against them and prove it.

Then I want to see them play the 1966-67 Packers.

Then the 1971 Dallas Cowboys or the 1992 Cowboys

Or the 1980 Raiders

I watched them play the 72 Dolphins twice.

But I liken this argument to my contention that Muhammed Ali in his prime would have creamed Mike Tyson in his prime. If you can't put them in the ring, it'll always be an argument.

You could always simulate those games on Madden Football .

 

[Shogun]

You could always simulate those games on Madden Football .

hehehe

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

I'm running a simulated game between New England Patriots 2008 verses The 1972 Miami Dolphins.

The game is being played in Arizona. I'll let you know the results.

After this I'll see what the Pats of today can do against the Steelers of the seventies.

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

Dolphins 24
Patriots 19