If the Patriots are so "all around dominant", why did they lose to the Broncos and earlier the Jets?
Blaine Send a noteboard - 20/10/2009 06:10:33 AM
...of course, let me preface that with the statement that while I don't think they are necessarily playing the best at the moment, I think they are the best team and will win it all.
NE has it all, great coaching, team mentality, skill, talent, and not to mention arguably the greatest qb of all time. He's matched Manning (Brady's only real rival) for statistics and tripled his ring total. The NE offense, when gelling, is as close to unstoppable as you can get, and their defense need only be good enough, but they can be great. Tennessee might be bad, but to hold any team to 0 points is impressive.
Other teams have serious questions. The Vikings have issues at receiver and I question Favre's consistency late in the season (though being in a dome will help), the Broncos are too young and inexperienced and Orton, though he's been playing well, isn't the kind of guy to lead you in the postseason, lastly, the Colts, again, I'd say they're too young. They're one of the youngest teams in the NFL so they have a lot of potential, but not the best team yet. They've had a soft schedule and their defense has still been trounced several times.
All in all, the Patriots are an all around dominant team. The only others that compare are the Steelers and the Saints. Both of whom, if not for less winning experience and less intangibles, I would place on the same level as the Patriots.
NE has it all, great coaching, team mentality, skill, talent, and not to mention arguably the greatest qb of all time. He's matched Manning (Brady's only real rival) for statistics and tripled his ring total. The NE offense, when gelling, is as close to unstoppable as you can get, and their defense need only be good enough, but they can be great. Tennessee might be bad, but to hold any team to 0 points is impressive.
Other teams have serious questions. The Vikings have issues at receiver and I question Favre's consistency late in the season (though being in a dome will help), the Broncos are too young and inexperienced and Orton, though he's been playing well, isn't the kind of guy to lead you in the postseason, lastly, the Colts, again, I'd say they're too young. They're one of the youngest teams in the NFL so they have a lot of potential, but not the best team yet. They've had a soft schedule and their defense has still been trounced several times.
All in all, the Patriots are an all around dominant team. The only others that compare are the Steelers and the Saints. Both of whom, if not for less winning experience and less intangibles, I would place on the same level as the Patriots.
I don't think it's smart to rank a team based on they played in previous seasons. Not only that, they aren't playing as good as they were back in 2007. IMO they're not the same team so its silly to call them the best.
Who's the best team in the NFL?
- 20/10/2009 05:35:56 AM
551 Views
The Patriots, HANDS down
- 20/10/2009 05:50:15 AM
433 Views
If the Patriots are so "all around dominant", why did they lose to the Broncos and earlier the Jets?
- 20/10/2009 06:10:33 AM
507 Views
saints, giants, patriots
- 20/10/2009 05:50:53 AM
448 Views
Re: saints, giants, patriots
- 20/10/2009 06:12:56 AM
462 Views
i even picked the broncos to win that game...
- 20/10/2009 06:33:52 AM
500 Views
The Pats just played the titans who had both of their starting corners out
- 20/10/2009 09:25:15 AM
560 Views
the titans are one of the bottom 3 teams regardless of who is healthy
- 20/10/2009 03:56:03 PM
467 Views
The Colts are, once again, an underdog in this picture... but there is no way the Broncos are better
- 20/10/2009 09:40:22 AM
635 Views
Lions!
- 20/10/2009 03:54:26 PM
452 Views
It's so strange to see the Saints being called "good," much less the "best." *NM*
- 20/10/2009 08:52:32 PM
201 Views