Who is the best team in the nfl

[savage1]

You're still wearing your Homer Glasses.

Most of the playoff bound teams in the AFC are very well coached. Fisher, Dungy and Tomlin.

While I think Bill B is a very good coach he doesn't deserve the genius title. He's not as great as a coach without Brady. Prior to Brady, Bill was an average coach.

If I recall, we also have a difference of opinion about Joe Torre. I think he is a great manager and destined for the Hall of Fame, while you think Tony Larusso is better.
While I agree that Brady makes a difference in the team, utilizing him correctly and getting the most out of his abilities and those of the other are another;Bill B deserves a lot of credit for those.
I guess we will just have to disagree on what constitutes greatness in managing and coaching.

[Three Jack]

the TEXANS...4 wins in a row baby...








haha...really though I say Pittsburg...

Too bad Sage blew that game against Indy! I really like your team!

[mavskidd02]

Isn't healthy Brandon Jacobs an oxymoron... I mean the Giants are not number one... Burress' absence is giantic... no pun intended... Okay, pun was intentional... And their pass rush, what happened to it... All teams have to do is stack the box. There's no outside threat... uh, they have the wrong Steve Smith and what's a Dominic Hixon??? Eli is not the same quarterback.

Panthers are peaking... but it's either the Steelers or the Cowboys... Cowboys D is terrific... They put it on both the Steelers and the Giants... and I don't have to comment on the Steelers D do I...

Tenn is mehhhhhhhhhhhh... Great coach though!

Terrific, you mean the Dallas D that's giving up 21 points a game?? I don't care anything about TWO good games, do it over the course of a season, then you can be the best. When it comes to best team in the NFL, I wouldn't even consider the Cowboys, not even the best in their own division let alone the NFL. (JMO)

[savage1]

Do you really think complacency plays a roll in the playoffs? I agree it does during a long season. The playoffs are often the best teams with the best players.

IMO complacency only is a factor for the lower seeds that are happy just to make the playoffs. Those teams often make a quick exit.

Savage, why do you compare everything to the Yanks? All of sports don't revolve around you beloved Sox and hated Yanks. Prior to this season the Yanks made the playoffs for 12 or 13 straight seasons. They failed to win the WS that last 8 or 9 years because they had inferior pitching. It had NOTHING to do with complacency.

Then to play Devil's Advocate, it didn't have to do with talent, then is sure as heck didn't have to do with the team having the best team or the best players or perhaps and just perhaps the team with the best team makeup and chemistry, something which you downplay.
Re:experience, there are many examples to show where it does count.
Sure the Sox lost to Tampa in the AL Championship Series, but lets not forget that they defeated the Angels in the round before, a team which had defeated them eight out of nine times during the regular season.
Did not experience, good managing and having been there count for something?
This topic is very difficult to argue because there are many different and overlapping factors involved.
The main point I am trying to make is that I feel in a one game elimination series, the Pats have a shot because of experience and very good coaching as well as of course having some very good players.
I feel that they would have much less of a chance to win if they hadn't won any Superbowls before and/or had not advanced deep into the playoffs and had a different coach.

[savage1]

I read your post, Savage...the 2001 Yanks were still built around the team that won 4 championships in 5 yrs. You want to discount '03 and '04, fine...but they showed ZERO complanceny and being financially happy when Aaron Fucking Boone circled the bases and the knocked the Sox out in game 7. Did they all of a sudden become complacent and financially happy in the 3 days prior to the WS?

If expereince is so important, why was it not a factor in the three series mentioned that were played this year? Were the Pats, Lakers and Red Sox financially happy and complacent?

I used to be a big proponent of experience, but I have learned better. And has a Sox fan, you should have too!

The Yankees of the 90's won because in addition to having very good players, they had great team chemistry(that dirty word again) and a lot of experience, Once guys Like Brosius, Paul O'Neil and other were not longer there, the team while making the playoffs, did not win any WS.
On paper the Yankees clearly had the best talent? how come no WS since 2000 then?
Could it possibly be because Cashman erred in overestimating the importance of obtaining players from other teams and signing them to huge salaries for umpteen years as opposed to putting together as a cohesive unit as the team had during the 90's?
Again, the basic point is that a fine team with a fine coach such as is the case with the Patriots, which has been there before, while rightfully an underdog this year to win the SP, cannot be counted out because of the factors cited.

[mavskidd02]

I've never heard so much baseball talk in a thread about the NFL. Might just be me.

[kbsooner21]

Savage, about the Yankees and Joe Torre right now? Let it go ... This is an NFL thread ...

[shoeman530]

It's not the Cleveland Browns.... this crap tonight is brutal!!!!

[NoCashMcgraff]

Terrific, you mean the Dallas D that's giving up 21 points a game?? I don't care anything about TWO good games, do it over the course of a season, then you can be the best. When it comes to best team in the NFL, I wouldn't even consider the Cowboys, not even the best in their own division let alone the NFL. (JMO)

The last 2 games?? haha, what on earth have you been watching? Try the last 7 games buddy. Ever since Wade phillips took over the D in dallas - which was the week after the Rams debacle the Dallas defense is giving up an average of 15 pts per game and 270 yards per game . Both over the course of an entire season would rank them third in the nfl in each of those respected categories.

Is it fair to consider dallas as the best defense in the nfl? Not by a long shot - but to say the dallas defense has only put up 2 good performances is erroneous. Say what you want about the dallas team, but they seem to be peaking at the right time.

[mavskidd02]

The last 2 games?? haha, what on earth have you been watching? Try the last 7 games buddy. Ever since Wade phillips took over the D in dallas - which was the week after the Rams debacle the Dallas defense is giving up an average of 15 pts per game and 270 yards per game . Both over the course of an entire season would rank them third in the nfl in each of those respected categories.

Is it fair to consider dallas as the best defense in the nfl? Not by a long shot - but to say the dallas defense has only put up 2 good performances is erroneous. Say what you want about the dallas team, but they seem to be peaking at the right time.

I don't understand how Dallas can give up 20+ to Cinci, STL, and SF (two of which at home) and anyone can still think their even kind of good.
And, in this seven game stretch your talking about, they gave up 35 to NY, and 22 to SF. Sorry for not mentioning the "amazing" games where they held SEATTLE to single digits, or WASHINGTON to 10 points, certainly great offenses. What are you watching, buddy?

[NoCashMcgraff]

I don't understand how Dallas can give up 20+ to Cinci, STL, and SF (two of which at home) and anyone can still think their even kind of good.
And, in this seven game stretch your talking about, they gave up 35 to NY, and 22 to SF. Sorry for not mentioning the "amazing" games where they held SEATTLE to single digits, or WASHINGTON to 10 points, certainly great offenses. What are you watching, buddy?

there is no question that the dallas defense was weak to start off the season. However, over the the LAST 7 games they have played phenominal. Dallas was up 32-9 midway through the 4th qtr before san fran did any kind of damage to their defense - dallas backed off and started playing soft coverage and san fran put up 2 easy scores. If you were watching close at all the dallas defense actually played the NYG VERY tough in the meadowlands. They sacked eli 5 times and the score was 14-7 at the half. If it wasn't for sorry ass brad johnson and brooks bollinger that game might have been a different story. (see this past sunday night for proof). Say whatever you want - the reality is dallas is peaking at the right time and I can just about guarantee that every time in the NFC is wishing dallas doesnt make it to the playoffs and if they do, they are praying they wont have to face them. There is no way you can argue that any team outside of maybe the panthers as being more dangerous than the dallas cowboys. And that is just for arguements sake because frankly I do not think the panthers are even that good.

[jt4545]

i don't think detroit is for sure!!!!!

[mavskidd02]

there is no question that the dallas defense was weak to start off the season. However, over the the LAST 7 games they have played phenominal. Dallas was up 32-9 midway through the 4th qtr before san fran did any kind of damage to their defense - dallas backed off and started playing soft coverage and san fran put up 2 easy scores. If you were watching close at all the dallas defense actually played the NYG VERY tough in the meadowlands. They sacked eli 5 times and the score was 14-7 at the half. If it wasn't for sorry ass brad johnson and brooks bollinger that game might have been a different story. (see this past sunday night for proof). Say whatever you want - the reality is dallas is peaking at the right time and I can just about guarantee that every time in the NFC is wishing dallas doesnt make it to the playoffs and if they do, they are praying they wont have to face them. There is no way you can argue that any team outside of maybe the panthers as being more dangerous than the dallas cowboys. And that is just for arguements sake because frankly I do not think the panthers are even that good.

1. That game was 21-7 at half, not 14-7. And they sacked Eli, four times, not 5, but aside from all of that.
2. The Giants racked up 300+ yards of offense, and rushed for 200+.They played them very tough, come on man?
3. All 5 touchdowns were offensive.

That game could have ended 49- 10 and every dallas fan around would still blame it on Brad Johnson, and Brooks Bollinger. "But yeah if Romo played, the game's a whole different story", my ass.
Are they hot? Yeah. But their defense (IMO) is still suspect, and isn't one of championship caliber, or even good enough to win ONE playoff game.

[frankb03]

The Yankees of the 90's won because in addition to having very good players, they had great team chemistry(that dirty word again) and a lot of experience, Once guys Like Brosius, Paul O'Neil and other were not longer there, the team while making the playoffs, did not win any WS.

What comes first team chemistry or winning? Team chemistry is another one of those phrases the media loves to pin on teams. While I do believe chemistry is important I've never heard anyone accuse any winning team of not having good chemistry. It's easy to have good chemistry when teams are winning. Teams have great chemistry one year followed by a bad year. Did they lose that chemistry or did they start losing games? This is especially true in the NFL. How many times have we seen teams go last to first in the NFC South? How many times have we seen division winners not make the playoffs the following season?

[hokie99]

Quietly I think it's the Colts. It seems the Colts find a way to get it done every week and there's no question Peyton should be the MVP. On a bum knee he's out there playing at a high level. Their D is clicking and they're running the ball well. They may win out going into the playoffs. No one is going to want to face them in the playoffs even as a wild card.