Redskins4ever Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 The New England Patriots are an elite group of players. They've won three Super Bowls during this decade, and are about to play in their fourth in a few days. Not trying to discredit this franchise, but given how free agency is along with pariity and the salary cap, where would you rank these New England Patriots? They are a great team but so were the Packers of the 60s, Steelers of the 70s, and 49ers and Redskins of the 80s. The Cowboys of the 90s were okay too, but so were the Broncos of that decade. My question is given the success that the New England Patriots have had in recent years, even if they win against the Giants on Sunday in the Super Bowl, can you lable them a dynasty? The difference between the teams that won Super Bowls during those other eras I mentioned above is that those teams were able to have success with the same players year in and year out. You can't say the same for New England. Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Troy Brown, David Patten, William McGuinneist, and even Adamn Viniteri are no longer there, but the Patriots are still successful on the field. Would New England go undefeated in 2007 if they still had the same players that they won Super Bowls with in '01, '03, and '04? Does Tom Brady break Peyton Manning's record for pass TDs in a season if Randy Moss is on New England's roster? Does Randy Moss break Jerry Rice's record for receiving TDs if he doesn't play for New England? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins4ever Posted February 2, 2008 Author Share Posted February 2, 2008 I guess with no replies every one agrees that New England is really inferior, which was precisely the point I was trying to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pats Fan Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 I guess with no replies every one agrees that New England is really inferior, which was precisely the point I was trying to make. I guess I will pipe in. The Pats are great because of Tom Brady. I am quite sure of that. He is a guy that shows up every once in a while and just takes over a team. So, yep, as long as Tom Brady plays the Pats will be quite good. I say this because to me the only other QB that ever played the game and did so was Montana. For those of you that never got to see this guy play he was over the top good. He was a pleasure to watch. Darn he was good. So, the Pats a team that was a joke, with Bledsoe as a QB, starts losing in 2001. He goes down, and a no name guy comes in. A losing team becomes a SB team. I don't know, but to me Brady is the Pats. I really have no explanation for what makes Brady who he is. It just is. Guts, work, I will not lose, I will do what ever it takes, whatever, he is 1-2 with Montana. I never thought I would ever see a QB as good as Montana. Never. But, gee, I got lucky it was my team that got him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWUeagleMD Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 I think New England is superior to a lot of the "dynasty" teams from recent history. Not the Niners, not the Steelers, not the old time Colts or Packers. But pretty much everyone else. Broncos, Cowboys, Skins... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 It is nice to see a Pats fan acknowledge that they would have no trophies if they didn't have Brady. Brady would make a number of teams SB champion. They are a good team, but please. I will say that the team this year is the best one that they have had. I think they are balanced on both sides of the ball and just playing great. Saying NE is superior to a lot of dynasty teams is just plain tough to call. Brady should be considered one of the best ever, but calling him the best is such a tough thing to say because other players had to play in different era's and on teams that didn't have as much talent. Brady is also playing in a pass happy league with rules conducive to his abilities. Go back in history and put the great ones during this era with pro offensive rules and better athletes to throw too. When Brady gets elected to the HOF the first year his is eligible he will not be the only QB to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWUeagleMD Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 It is nice to see a Pats fan acknowledge that they would have no trophies if they didn't have Brady. Brady would make a number of teams SB champion. They are a good team, but please.I will say that the team this year is the best one that they have had. I think they are balanced on both sides of the ball and just playing great. Saying NE is superior to a lot of dynasty teams is just plain tough to call. Brady should be considered one of the best ever, but calling him the best is such a tough thing to say because other players had to play in different era's and on teams that didn't have as much talent. Brady is also playing in a pass happy league with rules conducive to his abilities. Go back in history and put the great ones during this era with pro offensive rules and better athletes to throw too. When Brady gets elected to the HOF the first year his is eligible he will not be the only QB to do so. Its a tough call, no doubt. Since the OP declared them inferior, however, I thought I'd weigh in on the discussion. To call a team that has done what this team has done inferior makes stupid look desirable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeMarco Murray 29 Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Cowboys of the 90s were okay :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanatic684 Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 I don't think they are the best ever, but it's hard to compare teams from different eras. This '07 team would wipe the floor with that '01 team, that's for sure. And the Patriots missed the playoffs the following season. Not that it matters in the long run, but if we're being strict with the rules here, then that probably counts against them a little. It is nice to see a Pats fan acknowledge that they would have no trophies if they didn't have Brady. Brady would make a number of teams SB champion. They are a good team, but please. Ain't that the truth. I'm biased because Brady is one of my favorite players, but without him I don't think the Pats are anything special. Belichick is a very good coach, but you need that one great player, and Brady is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvisit1 Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 I think it is fair to say that they have the most potent offense the NFL has ever seen. However, you can't call their whole squad the best team ever. Their defense is suspect. The Eagles were a mediocre team this season and the Ravens went 5-11. Look at how close they came to beating them. It's their offense that keeps them in games. No one has been able to put up as many points as they have. When teams came close, Brady and all the playmakers around him put themselves in position to get that FG or TD when they needed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 I think this is going to be the closest thing you will see to a dynasty in the salary cap era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 I think it is fair to say that they have the most potent offense the NFL has ever seen. Again tough to call. Pitts had a lot of players make the HOF that played offense. Bradshaw was good, but not Brady good. Their line was great, they had better receivers overall and they had very good RB's. Stick Brady in that era and they might have won more. My point is that remove one of the greatest QB's to play the game and see what you have. Pitts would have won with other QB's. The same can't be said with NE. I am not saying Pitts would have won with just any QB. The QB has to be very good, but maybe not HOF good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Cowboys of the 90s were okay :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Interesting with the laughs. I think Brady is better than Troy A. If he had been your QB you might have won more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeMarco Murray 29 Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Interesting with the laughs. I think Brady is better than Troy A. If he had been your QB you might have won more. I wasn't saying anything like that . Just saying if the Packers of the 60s, Steelers of the 70s, and 49ers and Redskins of the 80s are great. How the heck is the 90 Cowboys just okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 I wasn't saying anything like that .Just saying if the Packers of the 60s, Steelers of the 70s, and 49ers and Redskins of the 80s are great. How the heck is the 90 Cowboys just okay. You have to take that up with the other fan. You guys had a heck of a team back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21 always Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 The pats are cheaters and I hope the senate and this story by the boston news paper comes out and tarnishes there wins , The report about them taping the rams final practice right before the superbowl!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.