The New New NFL thread

[Kalbear]

It was from wikipedia. I suspect they included sack drops in there as well or something like that. Still, the #1 scoring defense is pretty impressive.

[quote]i hate the pats as much as the next guy, but saying the giants were one of the worst teams to ever win a superbowl is a pretty far out fantastical notion.[/quote]Find 5 teams you'd consider worse. Heck, find 3.

[Swordfish]

[quote name='Slurktan' post='1593085' date='Nov 18 2008, 13.33']Wherever you got that quote from was incorrect. The Titans had the least amount of Total Yardage Allowed with 3,813. The Ravens had 3,967 [b][i]occording to the league stats on NFL.com. [/i][/b] Hence my saying the Titans were the number one D that year. granted not in points against or specific rush D.[/quote]

[i]
*pops popcorn, waits for the inevitable*[/i]

[Slurktan]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1593090' date='Nov 18 2008, 15.37']It was from wikipedia. I suspect they included sack drops in there as well or something like that. Still, the #1 scoring defense is pretty impressive.[/quote]

Well the #1 Defense for least scoring against :). Not sure who had the highest scoring defense but Tennessee also had more defensive touchdowns that year than the Ravens.

[Rockroi]

[quote]To be clear, I also think that 9 times out of 10 the 2007 Pats win that game too.[/quote]

I just thought of something... kal... why are did you write this except to out yourself?

The whole point of that comment was that you had stated, earlier up thread, that the Pats have lost it, are in the decline, and stated that one of the reasons you believe this is because the Gianst are one of the worst teams to ever win a Superbowl (I misread- I thought you said "be" in a Superbowl). Kal...

... if you ARE ALSO SAYING that the Pats would win 9 out of 10 times... THEN WHAT DOES IT MATTER THAT THE GIANTS BEAT THEM! You are, in effect, saying the Pats were a superior team! So, that UNDERCUTS what you were saying about the Pats being in decline since 2005 (an absurd, absurd statemen, btw). So... what is the point here?

And if you actually WIN a Superbowl, its really, really hard to try to justify how "bad" that team was. Becasue no matter WHAT- that team WON THE SUPERBOWL! Hence, every team form every season that won a Superbowl you can find something good about that team. And any team before 1990 doesn't count because of free agency. With all that said, the 2006 Colts had one of the worst defenses ever in the NFL post-season; the 2005 Steelers were... bad, and the 1997 Broncos were very "meh." So, I named 3.

[Swordfish]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1593090' date='Nov 18 2008, 13.37']It was from wikipedia. I suspect they included sack drops in there as well or something like that. Still, the #1 scoring defense is pretty impressive.

Find 5 teams you'd consider worse. Heck, find 3.[/quote]


Several teams have already been mentioned.

Really, it depends how you qualify 'worst' here. (worst regular season. worst on the day the game was played?), but off the top of my head:

80 Raiders, 01 pats, 87 redskins.

maybe even 06 colts.

90 giants.....

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='Rockroi' post='1593101' date='Nov 18 2008, 16.47']\... if you ARE ALSO SAYING that the Pats would win 9 out of 10 times... THEN WHAT DOES IT MATTER THAT THE GIANTS BEAT THEM! You are, in effect, saying the Pats were a superior team! So, that UNDERCUTS what you were saying about the Pats being in decline since 2005 (an absurd, absurd statemen, btw). So... what is the point here?[/quote]

I'd like to think that you can have a team in decline and still be superior to another team. Kal's argument still holds some water there.

[Kalbear]

[quote name='Rockroi' post='1593101' date='Nov 18 2008, 12.47']I just thought of something... kal... why are did you write this except to out yourself?[/quote]You got me. I'm gay. God, it feels good to finally say that.

[quote]The whole point of that comment was that you had stated, earlier up thread, that the Pats have lost it, are in the decline, and stated that one of the reasons you believe this is because the Gianst are one of the worst teams to ever win a Superbowl (I misread- I thought you said "be" in a Superbowl). Kal...[/quote]I know. Then you kept misreading it despite quoting me, me repeating myself, etc. It's kinda funny how little we actually read of each other.

[quote]... if you ARE ALSO SAYING that the Pats would win 9 out of 10 times... THEN WHAT DOES IT MATTER THAT THE GIANTS BEAT THEM! You are, in effect, saying the Pats were a superior team! So, that UNDERCUTS what you were saying about the Pats being in decline since 2005 (an absurd, absurd statemen, btw). So... what is the point here?[/quote]I'm saying that they choked it away. It's part of Belichick's failing abilities, for whatever reason. Probably not enough game footage. That's why I brought it up the first time and why I brought it up again. Seriously - when was the last time Belichick lost to a team he had beaten prior? When would you ever think you could say that Tom Coughlin outcoached anyone?

You liked bringing up the whole Manning face and how he chokes away everything. Well, let's look at the Pats since 2004.
2005: lost badly to Denver; Pats fans use excuses of referee bias despite turning the ball over 5 times.
2006: gave up an 18 point halftime lead to Colts; refused to run ball in second half. When asked, Belichick pointed to Mike Martz as the foundation of his decisions.
2007: despite having 8 pro bowl players, the best QB in the history of the game, one of the best receivers in the history of the game the Pats showed virtually no killer instinct through three playoff games. They had trouble beating the LT-less and Rivers-injured Chargers, then had their defense make bad play after bad play in giving up a game-winning drive to a Manning. Despite beating the team before their offense looked confused and they scored fewer points in their biggest game than any other game that season.

To me, that's a decline. Whatever it was in 2003 and 2004 they had - that will to win, doing the little things right, illegal film, whatever - they lost it. They started consistently losing to the Colts. They stopped playing big for the big games. They didn't seem to scheme well against players. They didn't make big plays like they used to. They didn't dominate in the playoffs. They didn't confuse opposing QBs. They made Eli Manning a hero!

[quote]And if you actually WIN a Superbowl, its really, really hard to try to justify how "bad" that team was. Becasue no matter WHAT- that team WON THE SUPERBOWL! Hence, every team form every season that won a Superbowl you can find something good about that team. And any team before 1990 doesn't count because of free agency. With all that said, the 2006 Colts had one of the worst defenses ever in the NFL post-season; the 2005 Steelers were... bad, and the 1997 Broncos were very "meh." So, I named 3.[/quote]2006 Colts still had Peyton Manning, and they had Bob Sanders in the playoffs. I'd take them over 2007's Giants. And they still ranked as one of the best offenses in the league.

2005 Steelers were a fairly good team statistically; they had won 11 games (more than the Giants), played a stronger schedule, and were ranked highly on defense all season. The Giants...were not.

1990 Giants were the best defense in the league that year.

The 2007 Giants were the 16th best offense and the 7th best defense that year. They had the lowest winning record of any NFL team, and the lowest winning % of any team (this admittedly is tied with a couple others). They played against both the NFC Central and the AFC East, two divisions with horrible teams (this is a good reason why they won more on the road than at home; they played @Miami, @Detroit, @Chicago, @Buffalo, and @Atlanta. DVOA had them as the 21st ranked team overall. They only beat one playoff team the entire season (Washington, which they split). They had 373 points scored for and 351 against. Seriously, at least with all the other teams you can point to one strong point and say 'yeah, they were pretty good' there. With them? There's nothing.

[TheAardvark]

[quote name='Swordfish' post='1593103' date='Nov 18 2008, 14.47']90 giants.....[/quote]

Testify. They were on their backup QB (who was average at best) and an above average running back who was coming to the end of his career.

Last season's Giants *should* have been better than they were before they went on their late season tear, because they had good personnel. Sometimes it just takes something to light a fire under them to get them playing together, smarter, etc.

The 2005 Steelers were worse as well, along with the others you mentioned, although the 2006 Colts is arguable. And I'll throw it out there: the 1968 Jets.

[Swordfish]

[quote name='TheAardvark' post='1593142' date='Nov 18 2008, 14.17']Testify. They were on their backup QB (who was average at best) and an above average running back who was coming to the end of his career.

Last season's Giants *should* have been better than they were before they went on their late season tear, because they had good personnel. Sometimes it just takes something to light a fire under them to get them playing together, smarter, etc.

The 2005 Steelers were worse as well,[/quote]

This is where i go homer on you. ;)

They were not among the all time greats, but let's not forget that they were 15-1 the season before, and that they had an excellent defense.

they struggled a bit with injuries and with the ups and downs of a couple young players in skill positions, and the game itself was ugly, no question about that, but i don't think that team was as bad as a lot of people make them out to be.

[TheAardvark]

[quote name='Swordfish' post='1593155' date='Nov 18 2008, 15.25']They were not among the all time greats, but let's not forget that they were 15-1 the season before[/quote]

Keep in mind that football is where "last year" matters less than in any other sport. I even almost said that they were better the year before they won, but figured it didn't serve any purpose.

I don't think that they were a lot worse than the 2007 Giants by any means; just that I feel that the Giants were slightly better.

For the record, the only NFL teams I hate more than the Giants are the Cowboys and Patriots, so I am definitely not a Giants fan.

[Rockroi]

[quote]You liked bringing up the whole Manning face and how he chokes away everything. Well, let's look at the Pats since 2004.
2005: lost badly to Denver; Pats fans use excuses of referee bias despite turning the ball over 5 times.[/quote]

No. I don;t hear it as often as you,a nd I livbe in NE btw. Pats fans had little hope that season after we fell off the rails. We were just not that good a team. We really do accept that loss. We then wtached that craptacular Superbowl and thought that evena sucky Pats team could have played better than that!

[quote]2006: gave up an 18 point halftime lead to Colts; refused to run ball in second half. When asked, Belichick pointed to Mike Martz as the foundation of his decisions.[/quote]

The D choked. Old, tired, wasting away... and that nifty PI call on Hobbs that the league had to appologize for. Regardless, they also had NO O besides Brady. Caldwell and Gaffney had to be repalced with Moss and Welker... and that worked.

[quote]2007: despite having 8 pro bowl players, the best QB in the history of the game, one of the best receivers in the history of the game the Pats showed virtually no killer instinct through three playoff games. They had trouble beating the LT-less and Rivers-injured Chargers, then had their defense make bad play after bad play in giving up a game-winning drive to a Manning. Despite beating the team before their offense looked confused and they scored fewer points in their biggest game than any other game that season.[/quote]

The D held each of their playoff opponents to under 20 points, which was actually really, really good. Not bad for team in decline. The last drive all came down to one play- a one in a hundred catch that the Giants made and the INT catch the Pats did not. Manning got away form a sure sack- it was a play that the Giants made. I don't really consider that a choke. The Giants D stepped up and played a fantastic game and they won.

[quote]To me, that's a decline. Whatever it was in 2003 and 2004 they had - that will to win, doing the little things right, illegal film, whatever - they lost it.[/quote]

Ah, nice pointles shot there. Stay classy, Kal.

[quote]They started consistently losing to the Colts.[/quote]

They beat the Colts in 2007... they did lose to them in 2008, without Brady. That is consistent... how?

[quote]They stopped playing big for the big games.[/quote]

Like winning the AFC Championship game in 2007? That's not a big game? Again, I'm stimied here.

[Kalbear]

[quote]They beat the Colts in 2007... they did lose to them in 2008, without Brady. That is consistent... how?[/quote]Since 2005 the Pats have a 1-4 record against the Colts. They lost in 2005, 2006 (twice!), won in 2007 and lost in 2008. 1-4 is a pretty consistent record.

[quote]Like winning the AFC Championship game in 2007? That's not a big game? Again, I'm stimied here.[/quote]Do you really believe that beating the toothless Chargers 21-12 with the best offense in NFL history is playing a big win? I mean, think about those dominant teams from yesteryear. Heck, think of how the Pats played the Colts in 2003 in the playoffs, or how they played 'em in 2004. I didn't say they didn't win some big games; I said they stopped playing big. Please, read the words I write.

And they really stopped playing big in the most important game.

(ETA: because the toothless chargers are not the same as the toothless Colts)

[Jaime L]

Re: The Giants

To me they are like the 2001 Patriots. They won a Superbowl before they got good.

Revisionist history says the 2007 Giants were a great team. They weren't. If David Akers made one very makeable kick, they don't even make the playoffs. They were a decent team that got really hot.

[quote name='TheAardvark' post='1593161' date='Nov 18 2008, 16.32']Keep in mind that football is where "last year" matters less than in any other sport. I even almost said that they were better the year before they won, but figured it didn't serve any purpose.

I don't think that they were a lot worse than the 2007 Giants by any means; just that I feel that the Giants were slightly better.

For the record, the only NFL teams I hate more than the Giants are the Cowboys and Patriots, so I am definitely not a Giants fan.[/quote]

That's interesting.

I never, ever, [i]ever[/i] think of the 2007 Giants as good as the 2005 Steelers. I mean it never entered my head. Can definitely see the similarities if I think about it: each did it all on the road, each shocked the dominant team that season, each pressured the hell outta QBs.

But the prior season [i]does[/i] matter in the NFL. The fact that the Steelers were 15-1 the year prior, tells me that when the Steelers went 10-6 the next year, that this was a team that was rounding into form by Playoff time. Maybe they had a few more hurdles along the way in 2005, but this was a team that had the kind of ridiculous talent necessary to go 15-1. Wasn't altogether suprising whewn they lit everyone up on their way through the playoffs. You just knew they were dangerous coming out of the wildcard (like the '97 Broncos).

Compare that to the Giants, a team that was close to firing it's coach halfway through '07...a team that had some talent, but could never seem to get out of its way the 3-4 prior seasons. Remember making a bunch of December: Where the Giants go to die, to a Giants friend of mine. Why did we have [i]any[/i] reason to believe they would go on the postseason run they did? And even afterward, what are we to make of it? They didn't just become a great team the second the playoffs started...they just got it done. Now they are a great team by almost any metric.

[the silent speaker]

The Giants were 10-6, not 9-7, and at 9-7 they still might have made the playoffs (though probably not have gotten far) depending on tiebreakers. Mind, I agree that the 10-6 2007 Giants were a good team rather than a great team, but they [i]were[/i] a good team, easily top 10 albeit not top 5. When you win two for very one you lose, it's not a shock that you get some postsason success.

[Swordfish]

[url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3709095"]haha... hahahaha... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....[/url]

[url="http://ballhype.com/video/tie_tie/"]And here's the video....[/url]

[Jaime L]

[quote name='the silent speaker' post='1593396' date='Nov 18 2008, 20.09']The Giants were 10-6, not 9-7, and at 9-7 they still might have made the playoffs (though probably not have gotten far) depending on tiebreakers. Mind, I agree that the 10-6 2007 Giants were a good team rather than a great team, but they [i]were[/i] a good team, easily top 10 albeit not top 5. When you win two for very one you lose, it's not a shock that you get some postsason success.[/quote]

Ahh, but it was determined had they lost that game to the Eagles, they would have gone 9-7 along with the Eagles and Redskins and both teams would've had tiebreakers over them causing them to miss the playoffs.

Yeah, I agree they were a "good" team, like most any team wins 10 games. When I said, they won a Superbowl before they got good...that was for effect, because it sounded awkward to say "they won a Superbowl before they got great." But before they went toe to toe with the Pats in Week 17, there was [i]no [/i]sign this team would go anywhere in the postseason. Still remember well, the sense of panic in New York after they'd gotten absolutely beatdown by the Vikings and Redskins very late in the year.

I will give that team credit for having the toughest road to Superbowl Champs of any team ever. They beat a 10 win, 13 win, 12 win and 16 win team, all on the road, on their way to the title.

[TheAardvark]

[quote name='Jaime L' post='1593183' date='Nov 18 2008, 15.57']I never, ever, [i]ever[/i] think of the 2007 Giants as good as the 2005 Steelers. I mean it never entered my head. Can definitely see the similarities if I think about it: each did it all on the road, each shocked the dominant team that season, each pressured the hell outta QBs.

But the prior season [i]does[/i] matter in the NFL. The fact that the Steelers were 15-1 the year prior, tells me that when the Steelers went 10-6 the next year, that this was a team that was rounding into form by Playoff time. Maybe they had a few more hurdles along the way in 2005, but this was a team that had the kind of ridiculous talent necessary to go 15-1. Wasn't altogether suprising whewn they lit everyone up on their way through the playoffs. You just knew they were dangerous coming out of the wildcard (like the '97 Broncos).[/quote]

See, I have never found "oh, they did X last year" to be relevant. A team going 15-1 the year before going 10-6 doesn't really mean anything; however, it's possible to rationalize anything enough to where it can be argued that it matters. IMO, if it mattered, you wouldn't have seen like 5 teams in a row get to the Super Bowl and then miss the playoffs the following year. Generally speaking, if Team X makes it to the Super Bowl one year, it isn't reasonable to expect them to miss the playoffs the following year based on that. It happened to several teams, but it was due to a series of events (injuries, bad breaks, bad calls, poor tackling, etc.), not what they did the previous season.

Oh, and the way the Giants played the Patriots at the end of the regular season opened my eyes a lot; I thought they would be dangerous out of the wild card, and could possibly make the NFC title game; I certainly never imagined them winning the Supwer Bowl. I viewed the 2005 Steelers in the same way.

Just my thoughts. Obviously, you have a different perspective, but it's all good.

[Chuck Klingbeil]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1593140' date='Nov 18 2008, 15.15']They played against both the NFC Central and the AFC East, two divisions with horrible teams (this is a good reason why they won more on the road than at home; they played @Miami, @Detroit, @Chicago, @Buffalo, and @Atlanta.[/quote]


They didn't play at Miami, they actually played in England... which is still not a home game, so your point remains... really don't even know why i brought this up... just typing... bye now.

[The Brandon Stark]

Okay, I have to say I agree to an extent that the 2007 Giants maybe the worst team to win a Superbowl. I am a huge Giants fan and doubted them every playoff game except Tampa. Even after beating Green Bay, I couldn't really give them a shot against New England, who had a rather uninspired playoff run after the regular season they had. Looking back now, I see quite a few familiars with the 2001 Pats though. That was also a team in disarray to start the year, had an improbably playoff run ending with beating the best team in football and went on to become the new dynasty in the NFL. I am not saying the Giants will become that, but at 9-1 this year it lloks that their SB victory was not as big a fluke as many think.


As to the 1990 Giants being a bad team to win a Super Bowl is just stupid. They had the best defense in the league that year, finished 13-3, and were only out of only one game all season. Sure their offense wasn't great, but as they proved twice now in the Super Bowl that a ball control offense and great defense will beat a great offense every time. Hell the 1990 team had hall of fame players on that team.

[Rockroi]

[quote]Okay, I have to say I agree to an extent that the 2007 Giants maybe the worst team to win a Superbowl. ... Looking back now, I see quite a few familiars with the 2001 Pats though. That was also a team in disarray to start the year, had an improbably playoff run ending with beating the best team in football and went on to become the new dynasty in the NFL. I am not saying the Giants will become that, but at 9-1 this year it lloks that their SB victory was not as big a fluke as many think.[/quote]

My point is that the 2007 Giants and the 2001 Pats were two very good teams at the time the playoff started. Everyone forgets this now, but the Pats had a by week in 2001 (mostly because the Raiders were mailing it in); the Giants had played a sensational game against the Pats to end the Regular season. Both teams were playing very, very good football when it mattered the most. Yes, in the first 8 weeks of the season, both teams struggled, but both were able to correct thinsg for that final playoff push. To me, that's a really good team. Some teams, well, they kinda sorta luck out. The 1998 Falcons were like that. Again, only good teams can get that close. And I still think that the 1997 Broncos may have been worse; the 2005 Steelers and the 2006 Colts.

[quote]As to the 1990 Giants being a bad team to win a Super Bowl is just stupid.[/quote]

Yeah, I don't know where this is coming from, which is why I have steered clear of this debate. The 90 Giants were a fantastic defensive team that knew how to optimise their Offense. They had Hall of Famers and played in a much tougher conference than the Bills. If the 2007 Gianst palyed the 1990 Giants, the 2007 team would lose. Then again, it spossible the 2007 Pats would lose as well, but lets not extend this metapysical argument any more.