[quote]daltron wrote:
Everyone has to nitpick this and that about the top team. In the end they are playing the game as one of the most dominant teams in NFL history.[/quote]
Slow down there fella. You’re leaning on statistics again and average margin of victory. They are dominating a mediocre league. Right now in the NFL there are 4 horrendous teams and two very good/great teams. The rest are all mediocre. The NFL has rarely had this level of mediocrity. Anything less than 15-1 and a Super Bowl keeps either team (Pats or Colts) off the list of most dominating teams in history.
Statistics gotta mean something when records are going to be broken. You can talk about league mediocrity all you want but when was the last time a team was playing that well and efficient? We’re about halfway through the season and I don’t see any signs of slowing down. Hell, they’re getting better. They’re already a dynasty with their three rings, number four might be coming soon.
[quote]jre67t wrote:
An overaged linebacker corps. Adalius Thomas is solid, but he’s not the same without Ray Lewis. There all solid, except Vrabel leading the way, he is one heck of a linebacker.
But honestly Junior Seau, Ted Brusci…bless there hearts. They leave it out there every Sunday, but they are a tad over-the-hill. The age part will be exposed on the latter part of the season.[/quote]
At this point, it’s more accurate to say that Ray Lewis (the BAL DEF actually) isn’t the same without Adalius. This guy is prob the biggest freak of nature in NFL history (nobody is supposed to be able to run like that at 6’2, 270lbs) and he can actually cover Dallas Clark and A Gates. And all those “less-gifted” LBs have simply mastered Belichick’s crazy schemes.
I hate the Pats as much as anyone but their front-office hasn’t cheated (to our knowledge) and their recent record is amazing.
[quote]daltron wrote:
Statistics gotta mean something when records are going to be broken. You can talk about league mediocrity all you want but when was the last time a team was playing that well and efficient? We’re about halfway through the season and I don’t see any signs of slowing down. Hell, they’re getting better. They’re already a dynasty with their three rings, number four might be coming soon.[/quote]
We aren’t debating dynasty status here. You were practically anointing THIS YEAR’s Pats team as the most dominant team in history. My point is that they’re not. In fact, I don’t think this year’s Pats team is as good as some of the non-Super Bowl teams in past eras. I’m not knocking the Pats, they’re a very good team, just not yet deserving of a “Most-dominant” title. Notice I said YET. We’re only halfway through the season. The Rams were getting these sorts of accolades not too many years ago when they were running through teams like corn through a Yank in Mexico.
[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
daltron wrote:
Statistics gotta mean something when records are going to be broken. You can talk about league mediocrity all you want but when was the last time a team was playing that well and efficient? We’re about halfway through the season and I don’t see any signs of slowing down. Hell, they’re getting better. They’re already a dynasty with their three rings, number four might be coming soon.
We aren’t debating dynasty status here. You were practically anointing THIS YEAR’s Pats team as the most dominant team in history. My point is that they’re not. In fact, I don’t think this year’s Pats team is as good as some of the non-Super Bowl teams in past eras. I’m not knocking the Pats, they’re a very good team, just not yet deserving of a “Most-dominant” title. Notice I said YET. We’re only halfway through the season. The Rams were getting these sorts of accolades not too many years ago when they were running through teams like corn through a Yank in Mexico.
DB[/quote]
The 1972 Miami Dolphins played a much harder schedual and went 16-0 and won the Superbowl. Their games were always close and the teams they played were good teams. Pats arnt the best team in NFL history; they are a great football team.
[quote]ss847859 wrote:
dollarbill44 wrote:
daltron wrote:
Statistics gotta mean something when records are going to be broken. You can talk about league mediocrity all you want but when was the last time a team was playing that well and efficient? We’re about halfway through the season and I don’t see any signs of slowing down. Hell, they’re getting better. They’re already a dynasty with their three rings, number four might be coming soon.
We aren’t debating dynasty status here. You were practically anointing THIS YEAR’s Pats team as the most dominant team in history. My point is that they’re not. In fact, I don’t think this year’s Pats team is as good as some of the non-Super Bowl teams in past eras. I’m not knocking the Pats, they’re a very good team, just not yet deserving of a “Most-dominant” title. Notice I said YET. We’re only halfway through the season. The Rams were getting these sorts of accolades not too many years ago when they were running through teams like corn through a Yank in Mexico.
DB
The 1972 Miami Dolphins played a much harder schedual and went 16-0 and won the Superbowl. Their games were always close and the teams they played were good teams. Pats arnt the best team in NFL history; they are a great football team.
[/quote]
The '72 Dolphins also didn’t blowout a single opponent, barely got by a few, and almost lost the Superbowl. Yes, they went undefeated, but they were far from a dominant team. The Patriots are dominating teams right now.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
ss847859 wrote:
The 1972 Miami Dolphins played a much harder schedual and went 16-0 and won the Superbowl. Their games were always close and the teams they played were good teams. Pats arnt the best team in NFL history; they are a great football team.
The '72 Dolphins also didn’t blowout a single opponent, barely got by a few, and almost lost the Superbowl. Yes, they went undefeated, but they were far from a dominant team. The Patriots are dominating teams right now.[/quote]
Man you make my point. The games they played were hard. The teams they played were better then the teams the Pats are playing. If the Pats played a team like the colts every weekend and went 16-0 then ok they’re the best team ever.
Ok so the pats are a ‘dominant team’. I agree they are dominating average teams.
[quote]ss847859 wrote:
malonetd wrote:
ss847859 wrote:
The 1972 Miami Dolphins played a much harder schedual and went 16-0 and won the Superbowl. Their games were always close and the teams they played were good teams. Pats arnt the best team in NFL history; they are a great football team.
The '72 Dolphins also didn’t blowout a single opponent, barely got by a few, and almost lost the Superbowl. Yes, they went undefeated, but they were far from a dominant team. The Patriots are dominating teams right now.
Man you make my point. The games they played were hard. The teams they played were better then the teams the Pats are playing. If the Pats played a team like the colts every weekend and went 16-0 then ok they’re the best team ever.
Ok so the pats are a ‘dominant team’. I agree they are dominating average teams.
[/quote]
Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Of all the opponents the ‘72 Dolphins faced that season, only two ended with a winning record, and they both finished 8-6. They also faced a one-win team, 2 three-win teams, and 2 four-win teams. No team in the Dolphins’ division finished over .500 that year.
These were the better teams they faced? These were the harder games? These were the “Colt-like” teams they faced every week?
I think you better read the Sports Almanac a little more carefully.
Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Of all the opponents the ‘72 Dolphins faced that season, only two ended with a winning record, and they both finished 8-6. They also faced a one-win team, 2 three-win teams, and 2 four-win teams. No team in the Dolphins’ division finished over .500 that year.
These were the better teams they faced? These were the harder games? These were the “Colt-like” teams they faced every week?
I think you better read the Sports Almanac a little more carefully.[/quote]
What does the records have to do with anything? Pats have rolled through a bunch of easy teams so far. Miami played in a tougher league. I dont think you could take a team from the 70s and put them up against a team in 2007 because so much has changed, but looking realtively I still believe that the Miami Dolphins were a better football team.
I didnt mean to make it seem like the Miami Dolphins played a team like the colts every week because thats obviously not the case.
Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Of all the opponents the ‘72 Dolphins faced that season, only two ended with a winning record, and they both finished 8-6. They also faced a one-win team, 2 three-win teams, and 2 four-win teams. No team in the Dolphins’ division finished over .500 that year.
These were the better teams they faced? These were the harder games? These were the “Colt-like” teams they faced every week?
I think you better read the Sports Almanac a little more carefully.
What does the records have to do with anything? Pats have rolled through a bunch of easy teams so far. Miami played in a tougher league. I dont think you could take a team from the 70s and put them up against a team in 2007 because so much has changed, but looking realtively I still believe that the Miami Dolphins were a better football team.
I didnt mean to make it seem like the Miami Dolphins played a team like the colts every week because thats obviously not the case.[/quote]
Of course it’s different eras, and different teams, but if you want to say New England has only played bad teams so far; fine. But Miami played a season’s worth of bad teams in 1972.
[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
daltron wrote:
Statistics gotta mean something when records are going to be broken. You can talk about league mediocrity all you want but when was the last time a team was playing that well and efficient? We’re about halfway through the season and I don’t see any signs of slowing down. Hell, they’re getting better. They’re already a dynasty with their three rings, number four might be coming soon.
We aren’t debating dynasty status here. You were practically anointing THIS YEAR’s Pats team as the most dominant team in history. My point is that they’re not. In fact, I don’t think this year’s Pats team is as good as some of the non-Super Bowl teams in past eras. I’m not knocking the Pats, they’re a very good team, just not yet deserving of a “Most-dominant” title. Notice I said YET. We’re only halfway through the season. The Rams were getting these sorts of accolades not too many years ago when they were running through teams like corn through a Yank in Mexico.
DB[/quote]
I said one of the most dominant teams in NFL history. I didn’t say they were the most dominant ever. YOU need to quote me accurately.
[quote]ss847859 wrote:
daltron wrote:
Statistics gotta mean something when records are going to be broken.
C’mon, stats don’t mean a god damn thing and you know it.
[/quote]
It’s the whole picture.
3 super bowl wins in the last 6 years, another possibly this season?
Offensive records on pace to be shattered.
A defense that continues to rank up there season after season.
A playoff record of 12-2 since 2001.
[quote]daltron wrote:
dollarbill44 wrote:
daltron wrote:
Statistics gotta mean something when records are going to be broken. You can talk about league mediocrity all you want but when was the last time a team was playing that well and efficient? We’re about halfway through the season and I don’t see any signs of slowing down. Hell, they’re getting better. They’re already a dynasty with their three rings, number four might be coming soon.
We aren’t debating dynasty status here. You were practically anointing THIS YEAR’s Pats team as the most dominant team in history. My point is that they’re not. In fact, I don’t think this year’s Pats team is as good as some of the non-Super Bowl teams in past eras. I’m not knocking the Pats, they’re a very good team, just not yet deserving of a “Most-dominant” title. Notice I said YET. We’re only halfway through the season. The Rams were getting these sorts of accolades not too many years ago when they were running through teams like corn through a Yank in Mexico.
DB
I said one of the most dominant teams in NFL history. I didn’t say they were the most dominant ever. YOU need to quote me accurately.
[/quote]
And you need to reread my post. I was not quoting you, I was summarizing your post based on content and tone.
[quote]ss847859 wrote:
daltron wrote:
Statistics gotta mean something when records are going to be broken.
C’mon, stats don’t mean a god damn thing and you know it.
It’s the whole picture.
3 super bowl wins in the last 6 years, another possibly this season? [/quote]
8-8 is also a possibility this season. Unlikely, but if Brady goes down this week with an ACL, then what?
Again with the stats. 1st half pace has about as much impact as second half performance as does the preseason.
What does this have to do with THIS year’s team?
Let the season play out a little more before anointing anyone with a title. Anyone who has followed the NFL for 20 years or more has seen teams off to hot starts through 8 games only to be a footnote in January. What happens in the second half is a far better predictor of the postseason. I’m not ready to put them in the Super Bowl yet.
