PDA

View Full Version : Who was the best team in the NFL last year?


jsagan77
07-26-2012, 01:07 PM
On another board I'm in a fued with some other Redskins fans that say the Giants were the best team last year because they won the Super Bowl. I say that they weren't the best team and that the winner of the Super Bowl isn't always the best team in the NFL.

So I'm just looking for objective views from fans of all teams so I posted here.

SuperPacker
07-26-2012, 01:10 PM
San Francisco 49ers.

vidae
07-26-2012, 01:14 PM
For my money it was the Packers.

Giantsfan1080
07-26-2012, 01:16 PM
The Giants were the best team at the right time. Throughout the whole season hard not to go with the Packers though. You get this argument almost every year.

Rosebud
07-26-2012, 01:25 PM
The Giants were the best team at the right time. Throughout the whole season hard not to go with the Packers though. You get this argument almost every year.

This is an american sport, not soccer where the title is given to the team that gets the most points throughout the season. Playoffs are what matter and the Packers got spanked in their only playoff game.

Giantsfan1080
07-26-2012, 01:31 PM
This is an american sport, not soccer where the title is given to the team that gets the most points throughout the season. Playoffs are what matter and the Packers got spanked in their only playoff game.

They certainly did. I see and understand both sides of this argument though. Using a Rolleism at the end of the day we won the Super Bowl so I don't care what others think. I think we're going to do well this year similar to 2008 and prove it wasn't a fluke.

jsagan77
07-26-2012, 01:41 PM
They certainly did. I see and understand both sides of this argument though. Using a Rolleism at the end of the day we won the Super Bowl so I don't care what others think. I think we're going to do well this year similar to 2008 and prove it wasn't a fluke.

I don't think anyone is saying the Giants didn't play well, but let's face it, they got hot at the right time, had some very fortunate things happen, and did a good job captializing. Every team needs a mixture of good play and luck to win unless you're absolutely dominant. But I think it's hard to look at the season as a whole and say that the Giants were the best team, simply because they weren't.

The NFC East is so tough that they'll have a tough time following it up. I see it shaping up to be much like last year where most teams in the division are one game away from a playoff birth. If you win 10 games in this division this year, you're doing good IMO.

K Train
07-26-2012, 01:57 PM
the giants were certainly not the best team last year, barely squeaking into the playoffs and all. They were best when it mattered for them but best overall not even close.

steelers were extremely good all year and then ben got hurt and they just started to **** the bed, but that happens to teams every year. 12-4 with the 4 being swept by the ravens (one week 1, and one abortion of a defensive stand with the game all but won :-( ), an away loss to the niners where ben had a bum ankle and no business in that game, and a loss to the texans....a pretty awesome team last year.

not saying the steelers were the best, just saying they were better than the giants. Id say packers were discount double checking everyone all year and looked like easy SB favorites

WCH
07-26-2012, 02:03 PM
Giants. Being "better" only matters if you win the game.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-26-2012, 02:31 PM
I don't think anyone is saying the Giants didn't play well, but let's face it, they got hot at the right time, had some very fortunate things happen, and did a good job captializing. Every team needs a mixture of good play and luck to win unless you're absolutely dominant. But I think it's hard to look at the season as a whole and say that the Giants were the best team, simply because they weren't.

The NFC East is so tough that they'll have a tough time following it up. I see it shaping up to be much like last year where most teams in the division are one game away from a playoff birth. If you win 10 games in this division this year, you're doing good IMO.

Not sure who the best team was. If it was the regular season which is a marathon, then the Packers just by their insane regular season record. If it's the whole season which includes the playoffs, then obviously us. We were the last team standing. So it all depends what you mean. Regular season I'd go with the Packers.

jsagan77
07-26-2012, 02:43 PM
Not sure who the best team was. If it was the regular season which is a marathon, then the Packers just by their insane regular season record. If it's the whole season which includes the playoffs, then obviously us. We were the last team standing. So it all depends what you mean. Regular season I'd go with the Packers.

I just mean, overall, all things considered who do you think the best team was? I guarantee at 8-7 you didn't think your team was the best in the NFL.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-26-2012, 02:50 PM
I just mean, overall, all things considered who do you think the best team was? I guarantee at 8-8 you didn't think your team was the best in the NFL.

Who was 8-8? The Eagles? Well, I liked the Packers all season, but I always go with the last team standing at the end of the marathon, which includes the regular season and playoffs. This past season it was us, and before it was Packers. That's the beauty of it. It's not the BCS or anything like that. Last team standing from the regular season, and playoffs is the best team. I always stuck to that.

jsagan77
07-26-2012, 03:33 PM
Who was 8-8? The Eagles? Well, I liked the Packers all season, but I always go with the last team standing at the end of the marathon, which includes the regular season and playoffs. This past season it was us, and before it was Packers. That's the beauty of it. It's not the BCS or anything like that. Last team standing from the regular season, and playoffs is the best team. I always stuck to that.

Woops, I meant 8-7...

The logic you use doesn't make any sense because the best team doesn't always win. That's the whole premise behind "Any Given Sunday" and "That's why they play the game". I don't even know if the Giants were favored in any of their playoff games or the Super Bowl. I know that right now the odds in vegas are that the Pack are 5:1 and Giants are 25:1 to win the big one and they're usually pretty good at hedging their bets.

I think it's pretty obvious that the Packers were the best team in the NFL last year. Losing one game in a tournament format does not make you a worse team than the team that beat you.

Mufasa
07-26-2012, 03:50 PM
The best team doesn't always win in the NFL. That's one of the great things about this game. The Giants won the Super Bowl, and in the end that's all that matters, but that doesn't mean they were the best team.

Last year the best team was the Packers, just as in 2007 the Patriots were the best team. The Giants and their fans shouldn't give a damn because they have the trophies.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-26-2012, 04:27 PM
That's sports though. This is nothing new. In my opinion the best team will win, and that's not always the team with the best record. If the best record team wants to be considered the best, then win. Win on that given day when you need to. If you can't then that's tough luck for you. That's the thing, I don't care about the best overall to tell you the truth. It's the best team on that given day.

Giants won the Super Bowl, and in the end that's all that matters, but that doesn't mean they were the best team.

Last year the best team was the Packers, just as in 2007 the Patriots were the best team. The Giants and their fans shouldn't give a damn because they have the trophies.

That's the thing, on that given day, we were the best day. If we weren't we don't win either super bowl.

We strung together days where we were the best team when it mattered the most, hence 2 SB. And true, it really don't matter, like you said at the end of the day 2 SBs is great results for me.

Best team, medium team, terrible team, when the time came when it mattered the most our play was the best. At that given day, we were the best team.

jsagan77
07-26-2012, 05:46 PM
That's sports though. This is nothing new. In my opinion the best team will win, and that's not always the team with the best record. If the best record team wants to be considered the best, then win. Win on that given day when you need to. If you can't then that's tough luck for you. That's the thing, I don't care about the best overall to tell you the truth. It's the best team on that given day.



That's the thing, on that given day, we were the best day. If we weren't we don't win either super bowl.

We strung together days where we were the best team when it mattered the most, hence 2 SB. And true, it really don't matter, like you said at the end of the day 2 SBs is great results for me.

Best team, medium team, terrible team, when the time came when it mattered the most our play was the best. At that given day, we were the best team.

I don't disagree with that train of thought.

Ness
07-26-2012, 06:41 PM
I think it was definitely the Packers. When they played the Giants in the playoffs it seemed like a completely different team than what we had seen all season. Like no one had practiced for a month.

BigBlueNorwegian
07-26-2012, 07:19 PM
I hate these arguments. I know I might come off as a homer, but I would honestly say this no matter what team won last year:

The Super Bowl champion will always be the best team that year. If we were to second-guess seemingly "weaker" champions, whether it would be by total wins, easy paths to victory, and so on, we would go against the very point of competing in the National Football League. Which is finding out which NFL team is the best each year.

Now can you find faults with how the competition is set up? Of course you can disagree with that. For example if you would think that it would be more fair if the twelve teams with the best regular season records advanced to the playoffs, thats totally fine by me.

But to go from there, to use potential flaws of the competition as arguments against the champion? That's silly. The players on those teams don't make the rules. They just compete to win the competition they are currently participating in.

This applies to every team sport, btw.

jsagan77
07-26-2012, 07:24 PM
Champion is a short term type word. The best prove it over and over again.

The Giants have won 2 SB's in the last 4 years but neither year did ANYONE consider them the best team in the NFL. Last year it was the 15-2 Packers and in 2007 it was the 18-1 Pats. Both those teams beat the Giants during the regular season but just because they lose one game in the tournament to the Giants does not mean the Giants were better. It simply means they won at the right time. You play those games over 4/5 times I think the Giants lose.

BigBlueNorwegian
07-26-2012, 07:33 PM
Champion is a short term type word. The best prove it over and over again.

The Giants have won 2 SB's in the last 4 years but neither year did ANYONE consider them the best team in the NFL. Last year it was the 15-2 Packers and in 2007 it was the 18-1 Pats. Both those teams beat the Giants during the regular season but just because they lose one game in the tournament to the Giants does not mean the Giants were better. It simply means they won at the right time. You play those games over 4/5 times I think the Giants lose.

That's certainly possible. But again, now you're using the "flaws" of the competition format to diminish the Giants' status as champion. The reality of it is that the competiton is built up so that a loss in the playoffs or super bowl is equal to elimination from the competition, and a loss in the regular season can be meaningless.

That's my main point. The champion of any given competition is always the rightful winner. They executed the navigation through the given competition the best of all teams. I'm certainly not arguing that for months last season, the Packers were playing the best football in the NFL. But best team overall? No, that will always be the team who wins it all when it's crunch time.

Mufasa
07-26-2012, 07:34 PM
I hate these arguments. I know I might come off as a homer, but I would honestly say this no matter what team won last year:

The Super Bowl champion will always be the best team that year. If we were to second-guess seemingly "weaker" champions, whether it would be by total wins, easy paths to victory, and so on, we would go against the very point of competing in the National Football League. Which is finding out which NFL team is the best each year.

Now can you find faults with how the competition is set up? Of course you can disagree with that. For example if you would think that it would be more fair if the twelve teams with the best regular season records advanced to the playoffs, thats totally fine by me.

But to go from there, to use potential flaws of the competition as arguments against the champion? That's silly. The players on those teams don't make the rules. They just compete to win the competition they are currently participating in.

This applies to every team sport, btw.

No one is arguing against the champion. No one is trying to take anything away from the Giants. They won the Super Bowl, that is the greatest achievement in the game. They earned it and will always have it. That said, the Super Bowl Champion and the best team aren't always the same.

Giants fans shouldn't be whining about this topic so much. You don't get a trophy for best team, you don't go in the history books for best team, you don't get much glory for being the best team. At the end of the day, the Super Bowl is all that matters. But just because they won the Super Bowl doesn't mean they were the best team that season.

scottyboy
07-26-2012, 07:44 PM
this is the stupidest topic. every god damn year. If my team won or not, the best team is the champs. the best teams win in crunch time. it's what makes them the best and the champs.

the giants were good enough to make the playoffs and won when it mattered. therefore, they were the best team.

were they the best REGULAR SEASON team? **** no. But that's not the question meow, is it?

jsagan77
07-26-2012, 07:46 PM
No one is arguing against the champion. No one is trying to take anything away from the Giants. They won the Super Bowl, that is the greatest achievement in the game. They earned it and will always have it. That said, the Super Bowl Champion and the best team aren't always the same.

Giants fans shouldn't be whining about this topic so much. You don't get a trophy for best team, you don't go in the history books for best team, you don't get much glory for being the best team. At the end of the day, the Super Bowl is all that matters. But just because they won the Super Bowl doesn't mean they were the best team that season.

Exactly what I wanted to write but could not find the words. Thank you good sir.

BigBlueNorwegian
07-26-2012, 07:46 PM
No one is arguing against the champion. No one is trying to take anything away from the Giants. They won the Super Bowl, that is the greatest achievement in the game. They earned it and will always have it. That said, the Super Bowl Champion and the best team aren't always the same.

Giants fans shouldn't be whining about this topic so much. You don't get a trophy for best team, you don't go in the history books for best team, you don't get much glory for being the best team. At the end of the day, the Super Bowl is all that matters. But just because they won the Super Bowl doesn't mean they were the best team that season.

Well, I disagree, and I would have disagreed even if the Eagles won the Super Bowl last year in exactly the same fashion as the Giants did.

Would I have posted in this thread to defend them? Well, that's another question, and I probably wouldn't have. But my feelings would be the same.

The champion of any league or tournament or cup or whatever, will always be the best overall team that year. Maybe not the best team for the longest stretch of the season, but the best team overall.

but I'll stop my seemingly homerish whining. Can't wait to get this upcoming season started!

Matthew Jones
07-26-2012, 07:47 PM
The Packers are probably the most logical choice here; they looked unbeatable for almost the entire season, even when Aaron Rodgers sat out.

Ness
07-26-2012, 07:51 PM
No one is arguing against the champion. No one is trying to take anything away from the Giants. They won the Super Bowl, that is the greatest achievement in the game. They earned it and will always have it. That said, the Super Bowl Champion and the best team aren't always the same.

Giants fans shouldn't be whining about this topic so much. You don't get a trophy for best team, you don't go in the history books for best team, you don't get much glory for being the best team. At the end of the day, the Super Bowl is all that matters. But just because they won the Super Bowl doesn't mean they were the best team that season.
Agreed 100%. Good post.

descendency
07-26-2012, 08:24 PM
I'm taking the Texans. I think most people under-estimate how far they could have gone if Schaub were healthy. That team was in a tight game against the Ravens without him, arguably that they should have won anyways.

They are the most complete team on both sides of the ball.

Ness
07-26-2012, 08:30 PM
I'm taking the Texans. I think most people under-estimate how far they could have gone if Schaub were healthy. That team was in a tight game against the Ravens without him, arguably that they should have won anyways.

They are the most complete team on both sides of the ball.

I was going to say the Texans too. They looked like they had the ability to beat anyone. But after ten games Matt Schaub went down and that was a huge blow. I still think they would have had a chance to run the table and end up 13-3 if he didn't get hurt.

Rosebud
07-26-2012, 08:52 PM
I don't think anyone is saying the Giants didn't play well, but let's face it, they got hot at the right time, had some very fortunate things happen, and did a good job captializing. Every team needs a mixture of good play and luck to win unless you're absolutely dominant. But I think it's hard to look at the season as a whole and say that the Giants were the best team, simply because they weren't.

The NFC East is so tough that they'll have a tough time following it up. I see it shaping up to be much like last year where most teams in the division are one game away from a playoff birth. If you win 10 games in this division this year, you're doing good IMO.

Which team was better in the playoffs?

The best team doesn't always win in the NFL. That's one of the great things about this game. The Giants won the Super Bowl, and in the end that's all that matters, but that doesn't mean they were the best team.

Last year the best team was the Packers, just as in 2007 the Patriots were the best team. The Giants and their fans shouldn't give a damn because they have the trophies.

The best team doesn't always win, but in the playoffs the Giants where obviously better than the Falcons, Packers and Patriots and at least matched the 9ers. So who was better in the playoffs?

Giantsfan1080
07-26-2012, 09:07 PM
It's a **** topic as I said before. I hate the question and the answers. Either side is right on this.

WCH
07-26-2012, 09:08 PM
Descendency makes a good point. I felt like the Texans were strong favorites to win the AFC until Schaub went down.

gpngc
07-26-2012, 09:08 PM
The Seahawks were the only team in the NFL to beat two final four teams.

WCH
07-26-2012, 09:12 PM
The Seahawks were the only team in the NFL to beat two final four teams.

I'm pretty sure that the Giants beat two final four teams.

:coolface:

gpngc
07-26-2012, 09:16 PM
I'm pretty sure that the Giants beat two final four teams.

:coolface:

Son of a...

The Seahawks were the only team in the NFL to beat two final four teams, including the Super Bowl Champion on the road (I was at the game).

FUNBUNCHER
07-26-2012, 09:16 PM
I HATE defending the Giants....!
That said, the regular season is just a prelude for the playoffs. All that matters is making the playoffs, whether you make it with a 14-2 or 8-8 is irrelevant in the NFL.

THe REAL NFL season begins when the playoffs start. Everything else is window dressing.

How can a team beat GB/Atlanta/SF/NE in the playoffs, all away games, and not be considered the 'best' team in the NFL??

Giantsfan1080
07-26-2012, 09:21 PM
I HATE defending the Giants....!
That said, the regular season is just a prelude for the playoffs. All that matter is making the playoffs, whether you make it with a 14-2 or 8-8 is irrelevant in the NFL.

THe REAL NFL season begins when the playoffs start. Everything else is window dressing.

How can a team beat GB/Atlanta/SF/NE in the playoffs, all away games, and not be considered the 'best' team in the NFL??

Thanks for defending us but we were home for Atlanta.

Giantsfan1080
07-26-2012, 09:22 PM
Son of a...

The Seahawks were the only team in the NFL to beat two final four teams, including the Super Bowl Champion on the road (I was at the game).

Me too as always. Should have had a beer at the tailgate.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-26-2012, 09:25 PM
I HATE defending the Giants....!
That said, the regular season is just a prelude for the playoffs. All that matter is making the playoffs, whether you make it with a 14-2 or 8-8 is irrelevant in the NFL.

THe REAL NFL season begins when the playoffs start. Everything else is window dressing.

How can a team beat GB/Atlanta/SF/NE in the playoffs, all away games, and not be considered the 'best' team in the NFL??

LOL. Good post, it's because people are in awe of the record, which was great. But it doesn't mean anything if you can't win a super bowl. However, the Packers did dominate the regular season.

Mufasa
07-26-2012, 09:41 PM
Again, the Champion always earned their trophy, and no one can take that away from them. But Champion does not always equal best team.

Anything can happen in a single game elimination tournament. George Mason and VCU have made Final Fours, were they one of the top 4 teams in college basketball those years? Hell no. They still earned their way there and should be celebrated for it, but there's not necessarily a direct correlation between the two.

The 2007 Patriots didn't win the Super Bowl, but are still one of the best teams in the history of the league, and yes definitely ahead of the 2007 Giants.

Yes, the playoffs are the most important part of the year, obviously. But just because they laid an egg there, doesn't negate how good of a team they were. There's a reason the Packers are the favorites heading into next season: because they were the best team last year.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-26-2012, 09:46 PM
Again, the Champion always earned their trophy, and no one can take that away from them. But Champion does not always equal best team.

Anything can happen in a single game elimination tournament. George Mason and VCU have made Final Fours, were they one of the top 4 teams in college basketball those years? Hell no. They still earned their way there and should be celebrated for it, but there's not necessarily a direct correlation between the two.

The 2007 Patriots didn't win the Super Bowl, but are still one of the best teams in the history of the league, and yes definitely ahead of the 2007 Giants.

Yes, the playoffs are the most important part of the year, obviously. But just because they laid an egg there, doesn't negate how good of a team they were. There's a reason the Packers are the favorites heading into next season: because they were the best team last year.


They are favored because of their insane offense and have the best QB in the NFL. And if you are going to be the best, then win the whole damn thing! You can't lose where the intensity picks up and then turn around and call yourself the best team. It doesn't work that way. Carry that over and win the whole thing. The regular season is all well and good, but you play that to your ticket punched for the playoffs.

As the yankees say, that's when the real season begins. Some football fans say, there are 3 NFL seasons. Pre season, Regular season and playoffs. Playoffs being the most important. I could careless how a team gets in. 8-8, or 16-0. You want to be the best? Win the whole damn thing.

Like I said I love what the Packers did during the regular season. But that's it. At least the 2007 Pats made it to the super bowl. Great accomplishment, but finish that with a win.

Ness
07-26-2012, 09:52 PM
Again, the Champion always earned their trophy, and no one can take that away from them. But Champion does not always equal best team.

Anything can happen in a single game elimination tournament. George Mason and VCU have made Final Fours, were they one of the top 4 teams in college basketball those years? Hell no. They still earned their way there and should be celebrated for it, but there's not necessarily a direct correlation between the two.

The 2007 Patriots didn't win the Super Bowl, but are still one of the best teams in the history of the league, and yes definitely ahead of the 2007 Giants.

Yes, the playoffs are the most important part of the year, obviously. But just because they laid an egg there, doesn't negate how good of a team they were. There's a reason the Packers are the favorites heading into next season: because they were the best team last year.

Stop it. We all know the 2010 Seahawks were a better team than the 2010 Saints.

Mufasa
07-26-2012, 10:01 PM
They are favored because of their insane offense and have the best QB in the NFL. And if you are going to be the best, then win the whole damn thing! You can't lose where the intensity picks up and then turn around and call yourself the best team. It doesn't work that way. Carry that over and win the whole thing. The regular season is all well and good, but you play that to your ticket punched for the playoffs.

As the yankees say, that's when the real season begins. Some football fans say, there are 3 NFL seasons. Pre season, Regular season and playoffs. Playoffs being the most important. I could careless how a team gets in. 8-8, or 16-0. You want to be the best? Win the whole damn thing.

Like I said I love what the Packers did during the regular season. But that's it. At least the 2007 Pats made it to the super bowl. Great accomplishment, but finish that with a win.
I think I've proved my point very clearly and there's really nothing left to say. It's also quite clear that Giants fans will never change their mind on this (well at least not until next year maybe), so it appears we're at a standstill.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-26-2012, 10:16 PM
I think I've proved my point very clearly and there's really nothing left to say. It's also quite clear that Giants fans will never change their mind on this (well at least not until next year maybe), so it appears we're at a standstill.

I don't speak for the others, nor care what they think. But the next super bowl champion will be the best team in the NFL. The team who survived the regular season, got their ticket punched for the playoffs, and then managed to win and get to the super bowl and win that. And I am consistent, and still believe that team is the best.

I am not sure of the standstill thing, but personally that's how I look at it. I could care less what the team does in the regular season. Did they win in the end? Yes, good then they are SB champions and the best team. If not, then no, back to the drawing board for that team. Maybe that's the coach in me, but that's how we look at it.

jsagan77
07-26-2012, 10:22 PM
Which team was better in the playoffs?



The best team doesn't always win, but in the playoffs the Giants where obviously better than the Falcons, Packers and Patriots and at least matched the 9ers. So who was better in the playoffs?

They were not better than any of the teams you mentioned besides the Falcons. The Packers came in flat and the Pats didn't execute, and the 9ers (thought you didn't mention them) gave them the game.

They were lucky to make the playoffs let alone win the SB.

soybean
07-26-2012, 10:38 PM
The Packers. They were definitely rusty off their bye.

I think teams will now start playing to avoid the bye.

FUNBUNCHER
07-26-2012, 10:59 PM
They were not better than any of the teams you mentioned besides the Falcons. The Packers came in flat and the Pats didn't execute, and the 9ers (thought you didn't mention them) gave them the game.

They were lucky to make the playoffs let alone win the SB.

Those are excuses.
If the Pack wasn't ready to play, that speaks to the mental makeup of their team which was far from championship caliber from the neck up IMO. If someone else has to find your motivation for playing hard in the playoffs, you're a fraud.
As for the 49er game, special teams still count and if you SUCK at kick returns/kick coverage, your team has a gaping hole that the Giants exploited.
Good teams don't totally collapse on specials in the playoffs.

The Pat got flat out beat. Tom Brady better watch out he's gonna come home one day and find Eli raw dawging Giselle. Eli owns Tom Terrific. Might as well take his woman too.

These arguments make no sense. There are no excuses for winning. Or losing.

Mufasa
07-26-2012, 11:04 PM
In my arguments I never made a single excuse for winning or losing. Simply put the Packers were the best team, and the Giants were the team with the best results. Two separate things.

In the end you would rather be the team with the best results than the best team.

FUNBUNCHER
07-26-2012, 11:37 PM
People are judging the NFL by the same standard used by the NCAA before there were conference championships, when all the teams in a conference like the Pac 10 played each other and at the end of the season the team with the best record was champ.

That's fine if there's no playoff. But everything in the NFL is based upon making and competing to reach the SB.

You can be a good, talented football team, but IMO you can't be the 'best' unless you are the last team standing.

JHL6719
07-27-2012, 12:05 AM
The Packers were the best team in the league.

You see, this is why I hate the argument for a playoff in college football, it diminishes the regular season.

The NFL doesn't crown the best team in the league as their champion, it's a flawed system. The NFL doesn't crown a season champion. They crown a tournament champion.

What you did in the regular season doesn't matter. Everybody who qualifies for the playoffs starts over with a brand new season once the playoffs start. "Getting hot at the right time" is saying nothing more than "An incredibly average football team pulled off a few upsets and can now call themselves superbowl champions".

I'm surprised that you really don't hear more about how flawed the NFL's way of crowning a champion really is. Everyone is too busy complaining about college football and how they decide their champion.

One of these days a bad 7-9 team is going to win a pathetic division again like the Seahawks did a few years ago and go on to pull off a couple of upsets in the playoffs because they "got hot at the right time"... and end up calling themselves superbowl champions. That's when everyone will see how flawed it really is.

FUNBUNCHER
07-27-2012, 12:07 AM
Call me when a sub .500 team ever wins the SB.

Mufasa
07-27-2012, 12:09 AM
The Packers were the best team in the league.

You see, this is why I hate the argument for a playoff in college football, it diminishes the regular season.

The NFL doesn't crown the best team in the league as their champion, it's a flawed system. The NFL doesn't crown a season champion. They crown a tournament champion.

What you did in the regular season doesn't matter. Everybody who qualifies for the playoffs starts over with a brand new season once the playoffs start. "Getting hot at the right time" is saying nothing more than "An incredibly average football team pulled off a few upsets and can now call themselves superbowl champions".

I'm surprised that you really don't hear more about how flawed the NFL's way of crowning a champion really is. Everyone is too busy complaining about college football and how they decide their champion.

One of these days a bad 7-9 team is going to win a pathetic division again like the Seahawks did a few years ago and go on to pull off a couple of upsets in the playoffs because they "got hot at the right time"... and end up calling themselves superbowl champions. That's when everyone will see how flawed it really is.

We're making the same end point for the purpose of this thread, but other than the first sentence I completely disagree with everything you said.

JHL6719
07-27-2012, 12:17 AM
Call me when a sub .500 team ever wins the SB.

It can happen. Hell, a 9-7 team just did. Same difference really.

The superbowl isn't even designed to get the two best teams in the league playing against each other for the championship. At least college football attempts to achieve that.

The NFL is designed to get the winner from the NFC to play the winner from the AFC in the superbowl. The two best teams in the league could very well be in the same conference... kinda like Bama and LSU were this past season.

It's the divisional alignments that has the NFL screwed up. A team with a losing record has no business getting into the playoffs just because they won the worst division in the league, while a 10-6 team from a much tougher division gets left out. It's a flawed system that has run it's course.

The superbowl was originally intended to get the BEST TEAM from the old AFL to play the BEST TEAM from the NFL. Two seperate leagues entirely.

The current NFL playoff structure is a watered down, outdated version of it's former self that's flawed to pieces. But it's the NFL so nobody bothers to look at it with a critical eye.

JHL6719
07-27-2012, 12:21 AM
We're making the same end point for the purpose of this thread, but other than the first sentence I completely disagree with everything you said.


Be a little more specific if you don't mind....

Forenci
07-27-2012, 12:21 AM
Meh, will of course seemed biased but I've always felt the best team the previous year was the defending champion.

Now if the question is, who was the best team of the regular season last year? Probably the Packers.

Mufasa
07-27-2012, 12:25 AM
Be a little more specific if you don't mind....

I think the NFL playoffs are perfect. I also think that the Giants are the rightful Champions. My point is that the Champion and best team aren't always the same. And there's nothing wrong with that. You strive to be the Champion, not the best team.

JHL6719
07-27-2012, 12:39 AM
I think the NFL playoffs are perfect. I also think that the Giants are the rightful Champions. My point is that the Champion and best team aren't always the same. And there's nothing wrong with that. You strive to be the Champion, not the best team.


They are the rightful champion going by that system. The point isn't necessarily who the champion is, but more about how they go about determining who the champion is.

I don't necessarily like the idea of crowning a tournament champion as the champion period, because everything in the regular season gets tossed out the window. Everyone is starting over with a brand new season once the playoffs start.

A 16-0 team is in the same boat as an 8-8 or 7-9 team once the playoffs start. I just don't like the concept.

I suppose that I like my champions be required to play like champions all season rather than watching incredibly average football teams pull off one or two upsets in a tournament and call themselves superbowl champions.

Ness
07-27-2012, 01:12 AM
I don't think the 2007 Giants were better than the 2007 Patriots. If one were to ask me who the best team from that season was, I'd say the Patriots.

Same with the 1990 Bills and 1990 Giants. Scott Norwood's missed field goal doesn't mean that the Giants were undoubtedly the better team than the Bills that year.

Rosebud
07-27-2012, 01:56 AM
It's a **** topic as I said before. I hate the question and the answers. Either side is right on this.

It's a topic that gets people all worked up, which is why it's a fun topic for us, since we don't really give a **** cause the Giants won the superbowl. It's why I love the German National Soccer Team so much, they've been that sports' best troll team, having crafted a remarkably successful legacy denying "Better" teams their titles. That's why my two favorite teams in all of the sports I watch are the Giants and Die Mannschaft.

Rosebud
07-27-2012, 02:08 AM
They were not better than any of the teams you mentioned besides the Falcons. The Packers came in flat and the Pats didn't execute, and the 9ers (thought you didn't mention them) gave them the game.

They were lucky to make the playoffs let alone win the SB.

They were far better than the Packers in the playoffs. That game wasn't as close as the score indicated. The reasons for that are inconsequential because when the games started to really matter, the giants were the better team.

Same thing for the Pats game, not executing means that in that game they weren't the better team. You can argue that the pats could've executed and in that hypothetical world would've been the better team, but you can't argue that in this world they were the better team because if they had executed they would've won. Execution is a crucial part of the game and failing to execute is what makes teams bad at football.

The giants were lucky that no one eliminated them before they got their **** together, but when it came down to it they won the games they had to win to get into the playoffs and clearly out played 2 of the 4 teams they beat, outplaying the third and getting lucky against the 4th team who was managing to match them.

What you did in the regular season doesn't matter. Everybody who qualifies for the playoffs starts over with a brand new season once the playoffs start.

I'm glad we agree on the principles of american football and one of the many things that separate it from the rest of the world's football.

descendency
07-27-2012, 02:51 AM
this is the stupidest topic.
were they the best REGULAR SEASON team? **** no. But that's not the question meow, is it?

I think it's a fair question to ask which team was better in both "seasons" of the game.

The NFL doesn't crown the best team in the league as their champion, it's a flawed system. The NFL doesn't crown a season champion. They crown a tournament champion.

http://thechiefest.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/lee-corso1.jpg

While you are basically right about it, pretending that other methods of crowning a champion are any less flawed is equally annoying. No method of crowning a champion is anything more than a set of rules to play under.

One might be called a "tournament champion" while another might be called the "regular season champion". I've seen "round robin" tournaments run where people who had abysmal records stuck around until the final cut was made and were crowned champion of the tournament (there was no single elimination tournament afterwards). Did anyone there that day think that person was the best? Not really. Does it matter? Nope.

Everyone's goal is to win the Super Bowl. It doesn't mean we as fans can't argue which team should have won it.

Obviously, as a Patriots fan... I'd like to see what NE would have done with a totally healthy Gronkowski (lol... Gronk would have Gronk'd them), but that doesn't mean I think NE was the best team last season.

soybean
07-27-2012, 03:24 AM
I agree with JHL6719 but there really is no other way to handle it. It's essentially college basketball where it's one and done.

the NBA, MLB and NHL make more sense because having the teams play a best out of 7 eliminates the chance of a surprise team catching a few breaks or getting a few lucky bounces on their way to the championship.

For example, college basketball has wayyyy too many "cinderella" teams.

Ness
07-27-2012, 03:46 AM
The Pat got flat out beat. Tom Brady better watch out he's gonna come home one day and find Eli raw dawging Giselle. Eli owns Tom Terrific. Might as well take his woman too.

Peyton Manning should keep his wife on guard because Philip Rivers owns Peyton.

Razor
07-27-2012, 05:56 AM
I had to go with the Texans. If not for the injuries they would've probably won the SB last year. Even with the injuries their defense was fantastic and they offense near unstoppable.

Jvig43
07-27-2012, 06:13 AM
I had to go with the Texans. If not for the injuries they would've probably won the SB last year. Even with the injuries their defense was fantastic and they offense near unstoppable.

I went with the Packers despite that pathetic excuse of a game against the Giants in the playoffs. They were killing it for most of the year and certainly looked to repeat another Sb appearance. But if the Texans had shaub I could agree with this somewhat.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-27-2012, 09:39 AM
I went with the Packers despite that pathetic excuse of a game against the Giants in the playoffs. They were killing it for most of the year and certainly looked to repeat another Sb appearance. But if the Texans had shaub I could agree with this somewhat.

I also want to see how the Texans do. I think they could have done better with their QB if he didn't get hurt. This season will be interesting to see them and how they do.

Maybe This Year Mayhew
07-27-2012, 11:35 AM
Giants whipped the Packers. The Packers had an incredible offense but that defense wasn't Super Bowl caliber despite the turnovers. Not even close. And that Packer offense got some big breaks who they played and when (4 teams without top pass rusher, 4 different teams missing top CB). An injured Detroit secondary twice, Rams(instead of 49ers as the West opponent), San Diego missing thier top pass rusher and second corner, Denver missing Champ Bailey, Vikings missing Cook twice, Giants missing Osi(2 sacks in the playoff game). Chicago twice(who did not bring their A game and missed Cutler/Forte once) and Atlanta(minus Jon Abraham who didn't play) did not bring their A game in the second half. Green Bay won the shootout against the Saints with good redzone defense and an early fumble Week 1 getting to play them in Lambeau which is completely different than the Super Dome like Detroit and Chicago had to endure.

Green Bay is a very good team but they will not be a 15-1 club and they will be challenged for the division by 2 other teams. Detroit healthier twice, Chicago's a better team and will give them two tough games, San Fran, Giants in New York obviously,Houston are going to really test that Packer offense. Seattle secondary could as well in Seattle. And another shootout in Lambeau against the Saints. If the Packers only lose 1-2 games out of that gauntlet, I'll bow down to them but right now the Giants are the best for smoking the Packers/Falcons in the playoffs, beating San Fran in a tight game on the road and beating the Pats in the biggest game of the year.

Razor
07-27-2012, 11:56 AM
I went with the Packers despite that pathetic excuse of a game against the Giants in the playoffs. They were killing it for most of the year and certainly looked to repeat another Sb appearance. But if the Texans had shaub I could agree with this somewhat.
Yeah, I was in a hurry when I wrote that. But what I said was under the assumption that Shaub stayed healthy. The Texans really had some bad luck last year. If not for the injuries I'm pretty sure they would've won.

Giantsfan1080
07-27-2012, 12:05 PM
I don't know if it wasn't for our injuries we probably would have had a better regular season.

bigbluedefense
07-27-2012, 12:30 PM
I'm part of the last man standing crowd. To me the best team is the one who wins the SB.

The Giants this year, the Packers last year, the Saints the year before.

If you're the best team you prove it in the playoffs, where there's no tomorrow.

*shrug* It's up for debate, I can see both sides, but to me its simple, the champ is the best.

FUNBUNCHER
07-27-2012, 12:54 PM
I don't know if it wasn't for our injuries we probably would have had a better regular season.

This is the one fact most football fans fail to see, the number of key injured players the Giants not only overcame but still had enough juice to win it all.

I know most SKins fans will admit(in private!!lol) one of the main reasons we won that first contest against NY is because they had like 5-7 key players out with injuries.

Were the Giants ever really at full strength all season???
Add to the fact they had absolutely no threat in the run game and their 2011 SB is even more impressive.

All this talk that the best team has the best record during the regular season is pure B.S.

Most teams don't even make the playoffs with the amount of injuries NY had.

If David Wilson has a borderline OROTY type season, the Giants could be even more dangerous in 2012.

Giantsfan1080
07-27-2012, 01:03 PM
This is the one fact most football fans fail to see, the number of key injured players the Giants not only overcame but still had enough juice to win it all.

I know most SKins fans will admit(in private!!lol) one of the main reasons we won that first contest against NY is because they had like 5-7 key players out with injuries.

Were the Giants ever really at full strength all season???
Add to the fact they had absolutely no threat in the run game and their 2011 SB is even more impressive.

All this talk that the best team has the best record during the regular season is pure B.S.

Most teams don't even make the playoffs with the amount of injuries NY had.

If David Wilson has a borderline OROTY type season, the Giants could be even more dangerous in 2012.

The Super Bowl was the first game where everyone was available to us who on the 53 man. We still had multiple players on IR though.

We really owe the Redskins though. If you didn't beat our ass at home we wouldn't have went on that run. The team needed a message and the Redskins presented it.

Razor
07-27-2012, 01:39 PM
I'm part of the last man standing crowd. To me the best team is the one who wins the SB.

The Giants this year, the Packers last year, the Saints the year before.

If you're the best team you prove it in the playoffs, where there's no tomorrow.

*shrug* It's up for debate, I can see both sides, but to me its simple, the champ is the best.

While I agree with everything you said I still disagree. Some years the team that wins the SB is the best team, but it's far from every year that is the case. Let's not forget that the Giants almost didn't make the PO. The Giants were by no means the best team last year. They are build so that they match up extremely well with teams like for example NE (not intentionally of course) and thus I will forever bet on the Giants beating the Patriots as long as the Pats doesn't improve on defense. Lots of teams could've and probably would've blown the Giants off the field that day in february. I dubbed the Giants as the most dangerous team going into the PO (http://draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50354), but the best? No way. The were hot, and that's what matters in january and february. The defense was finally coming together and the offense got lucky on a number of occasions. That has nothing to do with being a great team, it's just pure coincidence. Even without the injuries I highly doubt that team would've been much more than a roadbump to a healthy Texans team. That's just my opinion though..

bigbluedefense
07-27-2012, 01:51 PM
The Texans?

Matt Schaub hasn't proven a thing. I think it's a bit premature to assume the Texans would be in the SB.

And what teams would exactly "blow the Giants off the field" that we didn't play?

Malaka
07-27-2012, 01:55 PM
The only team I was scared of facing those playoffs were the Saints. I think if we played them in their dome for the NFCCG they would have smoked us honestly. But thankfully San Fran took care of them for us! :)

NY+Giants=NYG
07-27-2012, 01:58 PM
The Texans?

Matt Schaub hasn't proven a thing. I think it's a bit premature to assume the Texans would be in the SB.

And what teams would exactly "blow the Giants off the field" that we didn't play?

We murdered the Texans when we played them last in 2010 in Texas. It was 34-10 and we held Foster to 11 rushes for 25 yards. They got better and so did we. I think it will be a good game, and who knows it could, like all NFL games, could go either way. But as for being a road bump, come on now. Only team who can beat us like a drum are the Saints. That damn team in their dome scares me! LOL. No more Saints! Damn team runs us over, and then reverses and runs us over again.

Razor
07-27-2012, 02:09 PM
The Texans?

Matt Schaub hasn't proven a thing. I think it's a bit premature to assume the Texans would be in the SB.

And what teams would exactly "blow the Giants off the field" that we didn't play?

The Saints (in their dome), the Steelers and a healthy Texans team would've most likely killed the Giants last year. The Ravens would've been a great matchup as well. The Giants were by no means dominant last year, Super Bowl or not.

And the "Matt Schaub hasn't proved a thing"-argument is really beneath you. I could've said the same for Cruz six months ago when you were counting on him to show up huge in the PO.

Ness
07-27-2012, 02:20 PM
Schaub is a good quarterback. Not sure what he has to prove. I guess his longevity as he's gotten hurt a lot, but in terms of ability he's a pretty good passer. It's not his fault that the Texans defense has been absolutely dreadful up until this past season.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-27-2012, 02:29 PM
Schaub is a good quarterback. Not sure what he has to prove. I guess his longevity as he's gotten hurt a lot, but in terms of ability he's a pretty good passer. It's not his fault that the Texans defense has been absolutely dreadful up until this past season.

Injury issues and now he has to prove he can be that guy in big games, specifically in the playoffs now. I like Matt S. but he still has to prove he can win in the playoffs. Their defense is good, so it's on him to play well in the playoffs and do some good things.

Razor
07-27-2012, 02:31 PM
Injury issues and now he has to prove he can be that guy in big games, specifically in the playoffs now. I like Matt S. but he still has to prove he can win in the playoffs. Their defense is good, so it's on him to play well in the playoffs and do some good things.

My main issue with this is that he's never played a PO game. Why does he has to prove that he can win one before people start giving him some credit for what he does? He's proved that he can play at a consistent and high level in the regular season for some time now. There's no reason to think that he can't do that in the post season.

Ness
07-27-2012, 02:36 PM
Injury issues and now he has to prove he can be that guy in big games, specifically in the playoffs now. I like Matt S. but he still has to prove he can win in the playoffs. Their defense is good, so it's on him to play well in the playoffs and do some good things.

Yes I will agree that he has to prove that he won't choke in a playoff game, but in terms of ability to be a good passer in the NFL...I think he's already broken through that threshold.

This is a big year for Schaub as he is in the last year of his contract. I doubt he gets extended until the end of the season even if he's in the middle of having a good year.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-27-2012, 02:46 PM
Yes I will agree that he has to prove that he won't choke in a playoff game, but in terms of ability to be a good passer in the NFL...I think he's already broken through that threshold.

This is a big year for Schaub as he is in the last year of his contract. I doubt he gets extended until the end of the season even if he's in the middle of having a good year.

I agree with you. But I think any player still has stuff to prove. Matt has to stay healthy and then be that guy who elevates his game and team in the playoffs. Last thing you want to be is a solid QB during the season, but struggle in the playoffs when the pressure and intensity is jacked up.

I like him as a QB, but I do realize he still has stuff to prove mainly in big game situations, specifically the playoffs game by game as the pressure and intensity goes up. If they get or play out of that dome, then that's more to prove.

You saw that playoff game against you guys in the rain and terrible weather. Prior it was a playoff game in cold GB. Can he do that game after game, and produce in garbage weather outside the dome? That's what I mean.

So it will be interesting to see how he does.

Ness
07-27-2012, 02:49 PM
I agree with you. But I think any player still has stuff to prove. Matt has to stay healthy and then be that guy who elevates his game and team in the playoffs. Last thing you want to be is a solid QB during the season, but struggle in the playoffs when the pressure and intensity is jacked up.

I like him as a QB, but I do realize he still has stuff to prove mainly in big game situations, specifically the playoffs game by game as the pressure and intensity goes up. If they get or play out of that dome, then that's more to prove.

You saw that playoff game against you guys in the rain and terrible weather. Prior it was a playoff game in cold GB. Can he do that game after game, and produce in garbage weather outside the dome? That's what I mean.

So it will be interesting to see how he does.

Schaub merely hasn't the opportunity, mostly due to circumstances beyond his control.

We'll see.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-27-2012, 02:56 PM
Schaub merely hasn't the opportunity, mostly due to circumstances beyond his control.

We'll see.

That's fine. I am saying he still has to prove when he gets a chance that he can do those things as stated previously. I am not knocking him for not having the chance. When he gets there he has to produce. If not, he will get ripped. If he does produce then he will gain even more respect. That's how you build your legacy as a player.

jackalope
07-27-2012, 03:52 PM
I'd go with the Packers as the best team for 2011, but like many have said, they didn't show up in the playoffs, so it doesn't matter. The Giants won when it counts and they're the Super Bowl Champions. The system doesn't necessarily determine the best team, but I still love the NFL playoffs and wouldn't change anything about how they're set up.

In that same breath, at the end of the 2010 season, many thought the Patriots had been the better team than the Packers, who barely made it in before winning four straight in the playoffs like the Giants. You could make a valid argument that the Patriots were a better team than Green Bay that year, but Green Bay won the Super Bowl, so I couldn't care less. Nothing gets taken away for not being the "best team," as making it through the playoffs to win the Super Bowl is impressive enough in itself and is the only actual goal of the season.

FUNBUNCHER
07-27-2012, 04:05 PM
The Saints (in their dome), the Steelers and a healthy Texans team would've most likely killed the Giants last year. The Ravens would've been a great matchup as well. The Giants were by no means dominant last year, Super Bowl or not.

And the "Matt Schaub hasn't proved a thing"-argument is really beneath you. I could've said the same for Cruz six months ago when you were counting on him to show up huge in the PO.


You mean the same Steelers who couldn't handle the arm talent of Tim Tebow??:wave:
The Saints couldn't handle the 49ers, how would they have 'killed' the Giants??
People need to accept the fact the Giants turn into a different football team when the playoffs start. Lately they are one of the few teams to max out on the field when there is no next game for losers.

Ness
07-27-2012, 04:12 PM
You mean the same Steelers who couldn't handle the arm talent of Tim Tebow??:wave:
The Saints couldn't handle the 49ers, how would they have 'killed' the Giants??
People need to accept the fact the Giants turn into a different football team when the playoffs start. Lately they are one of the few teams to max out on the field when there is no next game for losers.

I think the Saints would have beaten the Giants. Especially since they'd have played them in their dome, where they seem unbeatable. I don't think the 49ers would have defeated them there either. Every time the Giants have played the Saints they've gotten blown out. I think all of those contests have been in New Orleans though over the last few years...and I think they've only played each other three times in the Brees/Saints era. This season the Saints go to New York we'll see how that plays out.

Rosebud
07-27-2012, 04:29 PM
The Playoffs are vastly more important than the regular season. If they weren't Marty Schottenheimer would still be the Head Coach of the Chargers. Joe Namath wouldn't have even been considered for the playoffs and Tom Brady before 2007 would've been just an average QB. The regular season only matters as it relates to the playoffs and the giants were the best team in the playoffs last year. I tend to believe that the best team in the playoffs is the best team in the NFL.

bigbluedefense
07-27-2012, 06:34 PM
The Saints (in their dome), the Steelers and a healthy Texans team would've most likely killed the Giants last year. The Ravens would've been a great matchup as well. The Giants were by no means dominant last year, Super Bowl or not.

And the "Matt Schaub hasn't proved a thing"-argument is really beneath you. I could've said the same for Cruz six months ago when you were counting on him to show up huge in the PO.

I'll give you the Saints, but that's it.

We beat the 49ers, which is a Ravens clone, at SF so I don't think they "kill" us at all, and the Steelers? They lost to the Broncos, how would they kill us?

Also, Cruz was largely quiet in the playoffs. He tore it up vs SF, but he was shut down vs ATL, GB, and NE. Bc it was his first time in the playoffs. I fully expect the same thing to happen to Schaub. It's rare where a player who never played in teh playoffs before comes out guns blazing and just tears it up in the playoffs. Ask any player, they'll tell you the speed of the game and the intensity of it is just different in the playoffs, its something you have to adjust to.

So yes, Schaub does have to prove himself first. Just like Cruz did. And quite honestly, Cruz didn't light up the playoffs at all outside of 1 half vs the 49ers.

And for the record, I don't think any of us Giant fans counted on Cruz to do anything this past year. None of us thought he'd have the year he had.

scottyboy
07-27-2012, 06:38 PM
giants fans will concede to the saints...but then again, they're similar to the Packers who the giants (sorry packers fans) absolutely WHOOPED in the playoffs. Hell, the packers were handed their 14 points in a way.

Also, if all these teams were better than the Giants, why didn't they have the opportunity to play us in the playoffs? Oh yeah, because they couldn't get as far as we did.

Were we the most talented? Hell ******* no. Best regular season team? Again, not by a long shot. BUT, we were among the top teams to make the playoffs. And then were the best in the playoffs. The playoffs are a part of the season, are they not? Again, if we're separating it into regular season, then it's not us, and not even close. It's the Packers or Pats probably. But encompassing the season as a whole? Yeah, it's the Giants. The champs are the best team. It's what it means. Packers were the best last year. It goes on and on

Ness
07-27-2012, 07:04 PM
giants fans will concede to the saints...but then again, they're similar to the Packers who the giants (sorry packers fans) absolutely WHOOPED in the playoffs. Hell, the packers were handed their 14 points in a way.

Also, if all these teams were better than the Giants, why didn't they have the opportunity to play us in the playoffs? Oh yeah, because they couldn't get as far as we did.

Were we the most talented? Hell ******* no. Best regular season team? Again, not by a long shot. BUT, we were among the top teams to make the playoffs. And then were the best in the playoffs. The playoffs are a part of the season, are they not? Again, if we're separating it into regular season, then it's not us, and not even close. It's the Packers or Pats probably. But encompassing the season as a whole? Yeah, it's the Giants. The champs are the best team. It's what it means. Packers were the best last year. It goes on and on

The 2007 Giants were a better team than the 2007 Patriots? Really?

The Giants have the hardware from that season, and are indeed forever champions, but I don't think they are the best team. And every season I don't believe the highest rated team all around wins the Super Bowl necessarily. Which is the fun part of watching every season...the best team won't always take home the gold.

scottyboy
07-27-2012, 07:12 PM
We beat the Patriots in that game so yes, we were absolutely better. Were they more talented? Yeah. Is that the question? No. I don't get what's so hard about this. I think people are confusing "best" and "most talented"

Ness
07-27-2012, 07:14 PM
We beat the Patriots in that game so yes, we were absolutely better. Were they more talented? Yeah. Is that the question? No. I don't get what's so hard about this. I think people are confusing "best" and "most talented"

It depends on how you mince words. It's a question of definition. For me, "best" and "most talented" are the same thing in this context.

The 2007 Giants weren't the best team that season, but they ended up winning the crown anyways...which goes back to what I implied earlier, the best team doesn't always win the gold. You just have to have a team that is good enough to be a candidate to win it all.

scottyboy
07-27-2012, 07:18 PM
It depends on how you mince words. It's a question of definition. For me, "best" and "most talented" are the same thing in this context.

The 2007 Giants weren't the best team that season, but they ended up winning the crown anyways...which goes back to what I implied earlier, the best team doesn't always win the gold. You just have to have a team that is good enough to be a candidate to win it all.

but...best and most talented aren't the same thing. Like, not even at all. Not even a little bit.

Best implies they are the best all around. Make the least mistakes. Best coached. Best chemistry etc. NOT most talented.

TACKLE
07-27-2012, 07:19 PM
We beat the Patriots in that game so yes, we were absolutely better. Were they more talented? Yeah. Is that the question? No. I don't get what's so hard about this. I think people are confusing "best" and "most talented"

The Little Giants weren't absolutely better than Cowboys just because they won 'one time' on the Annexation of Puerto Rico.

The Giants (the real ones) were better in that game but it's silly to think a 3 point win in one game makes that team 'absolutely better' than the other.

Rosebud
07-27-2012, 07:19 PM
The better team is the team that plays better football on the field. And in the playoffs the 07 Patriots looked much more beatable than the regular season 07 Patriots, add the Giants being the better team in the superbowl, and the 07 Giants where clearly a better team than the 07 Patriots. They didn't have as great a regular season, but the regular season is only there to determine who qualifies for the playoffs.

scottyboy
07-27-2012, 07:23 PM
The Little Giants weren't absolutely better than Cowboys just because they won 'one time' on the Annexation of Puerto Rico.

The Giants (the real ones) were better in that game but it's silly to think a 3 point win in one game makes that team 'absolutely better' than the other.

tackle, i love you, but did you really just use a fictional movie as a comparison?

Again, we're talking better, as in better overall in every aspect, not just talent. I'm not sure how else to put it.

Ness
07-27-2012, 07:27 PM
but...best and most talented aren't the same thing. Like, not even at all. Not even a little bit.

Best implies they are the best all around. Make the least mistakes. Best coached. Best chemistry etc. NOT most talented.

According to who? Again, it's a question of definition that will differ from person to person. There isn't a law that says those words can't be correlated to mean the same thing in the context of the discussion we're having. You obviously view things different, and that's fine.

The New Orleans Saints didn't win the Super Bowl last season. I still think they are higher on the "best team" list than the Giants though.

Again, you don't have to be the best team to win the Super Bowl, to me.

scottyboy
07-27-2012, 07:31 PM
i don't understand how you automatically equate "best" to "most talented" when in a game as complex as the NFL and football, there are so many other factors and variables that can elevate a team to be the "best" while they may not be the most talented

Ness
07-27-2012, 07:36 PM
i don't understand how you automatically equate "best" to "most talented" when in a game as complex as the NFL and football, there are so many other factors and variables that can elevate a team to be the "best" while they may not be the most talented

Well in context of winning the Super Bowl. I mean "the most talented" team and/or "the best" team to me, doesn't necessarily mean you have won the big dance. I don't think the Giants were the best team or the most talented last season, but they still ended up champions...which goes back to my opinion believing that you don't need to be the best team or most talented team in the NFL to be the last one standing. You just need to be good enough and good when it matters, but being good when it matters and getting a ring doesn't necessarily mean you were the best team that season.

All in all it shouldn't matter if you are a fan of a team that won the Super Bowl. Even if your team wasn't the best or most talented, you still won the contest. Your team was good enough to win it. You made it through the storm essentially.

Rosebud
07-27-2012, 09:20 PM
Ness's football opinions remind me Brodeur's life opinions.

jsagan77
07-28-2012, 03:49 PM
We beat the Patriots in that game so yes, we were absolutely better. Were they more talented? Yeah. Is that the question? No. I don't get what's so hard about this. I think people are confusing "best" and "most talented"


Stupidest thing I've ever read on the internet. Go look back at a list of the best teams ever and I guarantee you that the 2007 Giants are not on that list but the 2007 Pats will be.

scottyboy
07-28-2012, 05:06 PM
Stupidest thing I've ever read on the internet. Go look back at a list of the best teams ever and I guarantee you that the 2007 Giants are not on that list but the 2007 Pats will be.

HAHAHAHAHA go back and look at subjective lists of someone on the internet, use their opinions. that's right, that'll prove me wrong!

hilarious. Again, I take it as:

1) Best =/= Most talented. That's how I see it. Others see it differently and I can understand that viewpoint, I just don't agree with it.

2) We're not talking just the regular season, we're taking the playoffs. I'm not saying best regular season, I'm taking into account the playoffs.

But hey, there are lists on the internet that go against my argument, so I'm an idiot on the internet.

*ps. If the Giants didn't win this Super Bowl, would I be defending this like I am? Not as much, no, you're right. I'm not denying it, but it's my stance regardless. The best are the champs, the ones who are best in all facets and variables of the game throughout not just the season, but postseason as well*

Brothgar
07-28-2012, 05:12 PM
HAHAHAHAHA go back and look at subjective lists of someone on the internet, use their opinions. that's right, that'll prove me wrong!

hilarious. Again, I take it as:

1) Best =/= Most talented. That's how I see it. Others see it differently and I can understand that viewpoint, I just don't agree with it.

2) We're not talking just the regular season, we're taking the playoffs. I'm not saying best regular season, I'm taking into account the playoffs.

But hey, there are lists on the internet that go against my argument, so I'm an idiot on the internet.

*ps. If the Giants didn't win this Super Bowl, would I be defending this like I am? Not as much, no, you're right. I'm not denying it, but it's my stance regardless. The best are the champs, the ones who are best in all facets and variables of the game throughout not just the season, but postseason as well*

Just winning the championship doesn't make you the best team. Denver beating the steelers in the playoffs doesn't mean they were the better team. They were the healthier team.

scottyboy
07-28-2012, 05:15 PM
Just winning the championship doesn't make you the best team. Denver beating the steelers in the playoffs doesn't mean they were the better team. They were the healthier team.

So being the best trained, or having the best depth, or surviving the war of attrition that is the NFL season best, means nothing? This is my point. Steelers were obviously the more talented team, but they weren't the better team that day. Showing up and playing through injuries, having better depth, or adapting to injuries makes you better.

PackerLegend
07-28-2012, 05:16 PM
The best team last year was the Packers. The best team when it mattered most the Giants.

SuperPacker
07-28-2012, 05:16 PM
I really don't understand this argument. The Giants are the best, because they beat the Patriots in one game? So are the Chiefs better than the Packers? Are the Redskins better than the Giants? More than "being the best" contributes to winning a game. There's a bit of luck and then there's how you perform on the day. The Giants were the best team against the Patriots in the Superbowl, but were they the best team throughout the season? Of course not.

scottyboy
07-28-2012, 05:23 PM
I really don't understand this argument. The Giants are the best, because they beat the Patriots in one game? So are the Chiefs better than the Packers? Are the Redskins better than the Giants? More than "being the best" contributes to winning a game. There's a bit of luck and then there's how you perform on the day. The Giants were the best team against the Patriots in the Superbowl, but were they the best team throughout the season? Of course not.

Not one game...being good enough through the regular season to make the playoffs and then being the best in the playoffs. The Giants were the best team in the playoffs, so it's far from one game.

Giantsfan1080
07-28-2012, 05:24 PM
Were the Packers the best team in 2010?

PackerLegend
07-28-2012, 05:24 PM
Lots of butt hurt Giant fans in this thread. You guys got the ultimate prize quit ******* crying like babies because people disagree with your opinions. "Last year" is more then just the playoffs.

SuperPacker
07-28-2012, 05:30 PM
Were the Packers the best team in 2010?

For the whole season? No. We were inconsistent, losing to the Redskins and Dolphins at home. We lost nearly every close game we played in the regular season, and didn't even finish first in our division. I don't think you can call a team that finished the season 2nd in their division and then went on a hot streak and won 4 games in a row, the best team in the league that year.

Brothgar
07-28-2012, 05:33 PM
So what's the purpose of the thread then guys? Why didn't the thread just ask "Who won the super bowl last year" they made the distinction for a reason.

Ness
07-28-2012, 05:35 PM
Were the Packers the best team in 2010?

I thought it was the Ravens or the Packers.

scottyboy
07-28-2012, 05:37 PM
So what's the purpose of the thread then guys? Why didn't the thread just ask "Who won the super bowl last year" they made the distinction for a reason.

He asked a question to spring debate. Different sides and opinions came out. Now it's turned into a "Giants are butthurt homers thread" because when someone disagrees with you, ad hom attacks are thrown around and people get all up in arms. Actually, this was all started because the OP got in a debate with a redskins fan on a different board.

I've said at least 3 times my stance and my opinion on the terminology. Who ever wins the Super Bowl that year is the best team. It's how I see it. Feel free to call me a butthurt whiny homer, but it's my stance regardless if the Giants, Eagles, Chargers or Oilers win it.

Giantsfan1080
07-28-2012, 05:39 PM
For the whole season? No. We were inconsistent, losing to the Redskins and Dolphins at home. We lost nearly every close game we played in the regular season, and didn't even finish first in our division. I don't think you can call a team that finished the season 2nd in their division and then went on a hot streak and won 4 games in a row, the best team in the league that year.

You don't consider the 15-1 2011 Packers an extension of the 2010 SB winning Packers?

jsagan77
07-28-2012, 05:41 PM
For the whole season? No. We were inconsistent, losing to the Redskins and Dolphins at home. We lost nearly every close game we played in the regular season, and didn't even finish first in our division. I don't think you can call a team that finished the season 2nd in their division and then went on a hot streak and won 4 games in a row, the best team in the league that year.

Love the objectivity. +Rep

SuperPacker
07-28-2012, 05:44 PM
You don't consider the 15-1 2011 Packers an extension of the 2010 SB winning Packers?

Yeah, we carried on what we had from 2010 into 2011, but they're different seasons. If you're ranking who was the best each year you can't take what happened before or after that into account.

Giantsfan1080
07-28-2012, 05:47 PM
Yeah, we carried on what we had from 2010 into 2011, but they're different seasons. If you're ranking who was the best each year you can't take what happened before or after that into account.

Well I think you can. I already said I don't think the Giants were the best team throughout the year last year though. The 2008 Giants success to me proved that the 2007 SB Giants weren't a fluke though even though I know no one said that.

Smooth Criminal
07-28-2012, 05:50 PM
If every team in the league played every other team once, I believe the Packers would have came out with the best record. That's how I'm going to define best.

That doesn't take anything away from the Giants. They are the Champions and deserve to be obviously. But the "best" team doesn't always, or even most of the time really, win the title.

SuperPacker
07-28-2012, 05:50 PM
Well I think you can. I already said I don't think the Giants were the best team throughout the year last year though. The 2008 Giants success to me proved that the 2007 SB Giants weren't a fluke though even though I know no one said that.

It could prove they weren't a fluke, but it doesn't mean they played any better. In 2010 the Packers went 14-6. Going 15-2 the next season doesn't change that fact.

FUNBUNCHER
07-28-2012, 06:20 PM
Asking who the 'best team' was last season is vague.
The season includes the regular season schedule AND the playoffs. Every NFL HC and player will tell you that the NFL season is divided into halves, the 2nd half in many ways more important in the first. However if you don't perform well enough in the first half(regular season), you don't get the chance to prove yourself in the postseason.

The best team last season was the Giants.
The best regular season team was the Packers.

No one really gives a f____ who the best regular season team is, unless you own season tickets.

There is only ONE display in the HOF for the best regular season team in the NFL, and that's the 1972 Dolphins.
There won't be one for undefeated 2007 Patriots.

It's all about winning rings.

jsagan77
07-28-2012, 06:28 PM
Asking who the 'best team' was last season is vague.
The season includes the regular season schedule AND the playoffs. Every NFL HC and player will tell you that the NFL season is divided into halves, the 2nd half in many ways more important in the first. However if you don't perform well enough in the first half(regular season), you don't get the chance to prove yourself in the postseason.

The best team last season were the Giants.
The best regular season team were the Packers.

No one really gives a f____ who the best regular season team is, unless you own season tickets.

There is only ONE display in the HOF for the best regular season team in the NFL, and that's the 1972 Dolphins.
There won't be one for undefeated 2007 Patriots.

It's all about winning rings.

The 2007 Pats won more games than the undefeated Dolphins.. (true story) I think there will be some sort of recognition in the HOF for them. They're the first to ever go 16-0 during the regular season and only team to go 18-0 EVER, in NFL history. That's a huge accomplishment and one that's way harder than winning the Lombardi trophy considering only two teams in NFL history have achieved that milestone.

One game does not make a season or break a season of that magnitude. Kings beat Aces sometimes in NLH but it doesn't mean it's the better hand.

Rosebud
07-28-2012, 06:31 PM
Stupidest thing I've ever read on the internet. Go look back at a list of the best teams ever and I guarantee you that the 2007 Giants are not on that list but the 2007 Pats will be.

Was the purpose of your second sentence to try and disprove the first?

Rosebud
07-28-2012, 06:35 PM
I really don't understand this argument. The Giants are the best, because they beat the Patriots in one game? So are the Chiefs better than the Packers? Are the Redskins better than the Giants? More than "being the best" contributes to winning a game. There's a bit of luck and then there's how you perform on the day. The Giants were the best team against the Patriots in the Superbowl, but were they the best team throughout the season? Of course not.

It's because with their seasons on the line and both on the verge of accomplishing the entire point of the NFL season, the giants were the better team when they met. You can not compare that to a regular season upset of a Packers team that'd already wrapped up their division and didn't need that win.

The regular season only matters as it relates to the playoffs and once the playoffs started, the Giants were just as good as the Pats until the Superbowl, where they were better.

Lots of butt hurt Giant fans in this thread. You guys got the ultimate prize quit ******* crying like babies because people disagree with your opinions. "Last year" is more then just the playoffs.

:freakout: how dare you!...

jsagan77
07-28-2012, 07:14 PM
Rosebud comes in with some more Pointed information that remains irrelevent to the conversation. Again, just because it's a one and done tournament does not mean the best player or team wins. You have to take in the entire season because of this little thing that doesn't exist in your world obviously. It's called variance. Look it up.

Rosebud
07-28-2012, 08:11 PM
Rosebud comes in with some more Pointed information that remains irrelevent to the conversation. Again, just because it's a one and done tournament does not mean the best player or team wins. You have to take in the entire season because of this little thing that doesn't exist in your world obviously. It's called variance. Look it up.

But why? No one has made an argument for the regular season being anything more than a qualifying process for the post-season tournament. If that's the case who cares how they qualified? Let's look at how they did in the tournament that matters and from the start of the playoffs, the 2012 Giants were the best team in football.

jsagan77
07-29-2012, 12:21 AM
But why? No one has made an argument for the regular season being anything more than a qualifying process for the post-season tournament. If that's the case who cares how they qualified? Let's look at how they did in the tournament that matters and from the start of the playoffs, the 2012 Giants were the best team in football.


Let me answer your question with a question. Were the Seahawks better in their 7-9 season than the Saints just because they beat them ONE game in the playoffs?

Brothgar
07-29-2012, 01:40 AM
Let me answer your question with a question. Were the Seahawks better in their 7-9 season than the Saints just because they beat them ONE game in the playoffs?

I believe that is checkmate.

Ness
07-29-2012, 01:52 AM
But why? No one has made an argument for the regular season being anything more than a qualifying process for the post-season tournament. If that's the case who cares how they qualified? Let's look at how they did in the tournament that matters and from the start of the playoffs, the 2012 Giants were the best team in football.

Well, to me, the regular season is also a way of seeing which teams can make a case for being better than other teams. It's a much bigger sample size than a single elimination tournament and sets the stage for seeing how consistent teams can be facing various opponents. Things can depend so much playing in certain divisions and strength of schedule, that to assume that the regular is only important for making a logical order for the qualifying candidates for the post season isn't a wise way to look at it. Obviously that's it's purpose, but due to so many other variables that come into play with divisions and schedule, I see the regular season more than just a simple matter of determining the layout for the playoffs. Which is why I wouldn't automatically assume that a team that loses against another team in the playoffs were beaten by a better team hands down.

jsagan77
07-29-2012, 02:00 AM
I believe that is checkmate.

Thank you good sir. I agree.

Ness
07-29-2012, 02:05 AM
I'm just not a fan of the last team standing formula. Not every team in the tournament played each other at every possible venue. I don't think the Giants are necessarily better than the Ravens, or even the Patriots better than the Ravens who happened to win on two lucky mini miracles. Are the Saints a worse team than the Giants? Or are they lower on the "best team of last season" scale via last man standing? Because by that account they'd be the 5th to 8th best team from last season all because they lost in the divisional round.

Cudders
07-29-2012, 03:11 AM
Itís sports. Itís been proven again and again that the better team doesnít win 100% of the time. If that happened, we wouldnít watch it. There would be nothing to drive intrigue for us.

For that reason, head-to-head results canít be regarded as the definitive source for settling these matters. It relies on a single outcome and ignores the long series of events that have occurred beforehand. When the Browns beat the Saints and Patriots in back-to-back weeks, no one is arguing them as a better team. Or at least shouldnít be. Team performance isnít a quantifiable data point that can be plotted with ease and then studied until the perfect pattern is discovered. Itís the ultimate variable. It depends on a multitude of factors, ranging from that particular matchup to the teamís mental readiness and health to the field conditions and on and on. Itís quite difficult, if not outright impossible, to isolate each of those variables and come to an empirical conclusion. The Giants are a notable example themselves. For much of the season, New York was a talented team with mediocre results. At the end of the season, New York was being crowned champions of the entire league.

So itís somewhat of an abstract, unanswerable question. The Giants were the better team against the Patriots in the Super Bowl. Same goes against the Niners and Packers and Falcons. But what if New York had to go to New Orleans and meet the Saints in the Dome after being slaughtered there just weeks earlier? Since the postseason isnít a round-robin tournament, we canít know.

And thatís part of the point. The NFL structure rewards successful regular season teams with a chance to participate in a winner-take-all, single-elimination tournament. But each team in the NFL understands that deal. You must win in the postseason to reach the pinnacle of the sport. No exceptions. No room for error. Operating under those conditions, the Giants were the last team standing. No argument.

That said, for me, itís not so black-and-white. There are some instances throughout sports where I donít feel the champions were the undisputed best team. The first Super Bowl featuring the Giants and Patriots is one of them. New York bested New England in a winner-take-all situation and earned their rings, but that doesnít make them the best team on a holistic basis. Those Patriots won eighteen games, including an earlier one against the Giants, for a reason. That team was as dominant as weíve ever seen. The Giants punctuated a dominant stretch with a Super Bowl win. It wasn't a mistake when it was called one of the greatest upsets of all-time.

As for last season in particular, I think itís splitting hairs. There wasnít a single historic, special team in the field to choose from. Arguments can be (and, I see, have been) made for a few teams. The Packers had a remarkable offense, but their defense was far too flawed for me to put them in the same kind of class as the record-breaking Patriots. Itís harder to ignore postseason failures when a consistent, glaring weakness is present.

Rosebud
07-29-2012, 09:10 AM
Let me answer your question with a question. Were the Seahawks better in their 7-9 season than the Saints just because they beat them ONE game in the playoffs?

Where the Dutch better than the Danes at Euro 2012? The Netherlands was much more impressive through qualifying, had much more talent and would probably beat Denmark at least 7 times if they played 10 games. But when the games became more important the Dutch **** the bed, and Dane's didn't.

Anyway neither the Saints nor the Seahawks were close to being the best teams' in the NFL two season ago. The Seahawks lone upset is not the same as a team winning the superbowl while outplaying 2 of the best teams from the NFL regular season, holding on against a third that was matching them and absolutely handling a 4th playoff team.

Well, to me, the regular season is also a way of seeing which teams can make a case for being better than other teams. It's a much bigger sample size than a single elimination tournament and sets the stage for seeing how consistent teams can be facing various opponents. Things can depend so much playing in certain divisions and strength of schedule, that to assume that the regular is only important for making a logical order for the qualifying candidates for the post season isn't a wise way to look at it. Obviously that's it's purpose, but due to so many other variables that come into play with divisions and schedule, I see the regular season more than just a simple matter of determining the layout for the playoffs. Which is why I wouldn't automatically assume that a team that loses against another team in the playoffs were beaten by a better team hands down.

I'm not arguing that. That's why I've said multiple times that the Giants didn't clearly out play the 9ers in their game but rather pulled out an even matched game. What I am arguing is that looking at the whole playoffs, where the giants clearly out played the Packers, Patriots and Falcons, and made it past the 9ers, they were the best team over that whole stretch of playoff action, which is ultimately the whole point of the NFL season.

Look, I don't mind crowning the best regular season team, that's what the Bundesliga does and I watch that league very closely, but that's not how the NFL decides it's champion, so why overvalue a part of the season that plenty of teams treat as solely the path to a playoff spot?

When a mediocre 7-9 team gets lucky 4 straight games and wins a truly fluke superbowl, then I'd agree that the Superbowl champ wasn't the best team in the NFL, but last year? The giants where the best team in the playoffs, they didn't just win, but also outperformed every other team once the knockout rounds started. For that they deserve the title of best team.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-29-2012, 09:18 AM
It's a good topic of conversation and a good thread. Lots of a good ideas being tossed around. Good job guys!

LonghornsLegend
07-29-2012, 10:10 AM
I guess it depends on your interpretation of this, but the Packers are certainly not the right answer. Unless I missed something, the question was not "who was the best team in the regular season last year". That's not the way sports works. They didn't even win a playoff game, and looked like **** in the process.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-29-2012, 10:18 AM
I guess it depends on your interpretation of this, but the Packers are certainly not the right answer. Unless I missed something, the question was not "who was the best team in the regular season last year". That's not the way sports works. They didn't even win a playoff game, and looked like **** in the process.

Great post! And gave you props via rep increase!

SuperPacker
07-29-2012, 10:25 AM
I guess it depends on your interpretation of this, but the Packers are certainly not the right answer. Unless I missed something, the question was not "who was the best team in the regular season last year". That's not the way sports works. They didn't even win a playoff game, and looked like **** in the process.

The question also isn't "who was the best team in the playoffs last year". It's the season as a whole, and the regular season has to be take into account.

Who do you think was the best team last year?

LonghornsLegend
07-29-2012, 10:32 AM
The question also isn't "who was the best team in the playoffs last year". It's the season as a whole, and the regular season has to be take into account.

Who do you think was the best team last year?


I'd probably say the 49ers. They were dominant in the regular season, beat a high powered Saints team in a fashion that nobody would have expected(passing the ball, quick scoring drives and long scoring drives, shootout), and while I hate to pin point a loss to 1 area them having Kyle Williams instead of Ginn returning punts was the primary reason they lost to the SB champs.


I agree it should be a little of both taken into account, but I'd certainly give more weight to the playoffs if we were using that ratio. They also gave the Giants the toughest test since the point they got hot, and had the easiest variable to identify as to why they lost.


The entire Packers team just looked lost in that game. Where as the Niners had a new returner who continually gave up the ball in Giants territory. If not them I'd say the Giants, but I'd have SF slightly higher due to them dominating games mostly from beginning to end all year long.

SuperPacker
07-29-2012, 10:39 AM
I'd probably say the 49ers. They were dominant in the regular season, beat a high powered Saints team in a fashion that nobody would have expected(passing the ball, quick scoring drives and long scoring drives, shootout), and while I hate to pin point a loss to 1 area them having Kyle Williams instead of Ginn returning punts was the primary reason they lost to the SB champs.


I agree it should be a little of both taken into account, but I'd certainly give more weight to the playoffs if we were using that ratio. They also gave the Giants the toughest test since the point they got hot, and had the easiest variable to identify as to why they lost.


The entire Packers team just looked lost in that game. Where as the Niners had a new returner who continually gave up the ball in Giants territory. If not them I'd say the Giants, but I'd have SF slightly higher due to them dominating games mostly from beginning to end all year long.

Yeah ok. I went with the 49ers as well, for those reasons.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-29-2012, 11:39 AM
I'd probably say the 49ers. They were dominant in the regular season, beat a high powered Saints team in a fashion that nobody would have expected(passing the ball, quick scoring drives and long scoring drives, shootout), and while I hate to pin point a loss to 1 area them having Kyle Williams instead of Ginn returning punts was the primary reason they lost to the SB champs.


I agree it should be a little of both taken into account, but I'd certainly give more weight to the playoffs if we were using that ratio. They also gave the Giants the toughest test since the point they got hot, and had the easiest variable to identify as to why they lost.


The entire Packers team just looked lost in that game. Where as the Niners had a new returner who continually gave up the ball in Giants territory. If not them I'd say the Giants, but I'd have SF slightly higher due to them dominating games mostly from beginning to end all year long.


Yeah they were a very solid team last year during the regular season AND in the playoffs. I can see them being the answer. I think with parity in the NFL, good teams are so close in talent, that the smallest breaks in the game can lead to a win or loss.

I think the niners had a great defense which fueled their team. That insane turnover ratio helped propel that team far as well. I can see them being a good choice for the best overall team.

But the irony is they lost the game because they had more turnovers, which was one of the critical factors for their success overall. Kyle Williams hurt them, but those are breaks in the game.

jackalope
07-29-2012, 11:49 AM
If the 2007 Patriots and Giants had hypothetically played each other 100 times, it's my opinion that the Patriots would win roughly 55-60 of the games. The Patriots after all did beat New York at the end of the regular season in what was also a close game. They were clearly two closely matched teams, and the gap wasn't very big. The Giants actually did win and are 100% the rightful champions of that season, but weren't necessarily the best (in my opinion, but maybe New York would have beaten New England a higher percentage of the times had the hypothetical been played out). The NBA, MLB, and NHL all have series to determine their champions, which allows for a more accurate way of choosing the best team. I greatly prefer the NFL's single elimination, despite the fact that I don't believe it gives as accurate a determination.

jsagan77
07-29-2012, 05:25 PM
Rosebud, i think you're clearly missing the point. I think it's pretty clear that the best team doesn't always win. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find a team in the post season last year that would rather face the Packers, 9ers or probably the saints for that matter, rather than the Giants. I mean even if you go back and look at power rankings for the post season last year and vegas odds of who will win the super bowl that the giants were probably middle of the pack at best. Going into next season I don't even think the Giants are the best team in the East and a more of a barely top 10 team.

My pre season top 10

Packers
Pats
9ers
Texans
Bears
Steelers
Saints
Ravens
Eagles
Bronco's (if peyton is healthy)

Next tier is falcons, dallas, NYG, lions

Teams on the rise Skins, KC, Tampa, Carolina,

jsagan77
07-29-2012, 05:26 PM
If the 2007 Patriots and Giants had hypothetically played each other 100 times, it's my opinion that the Patriots would win roughly 55-60 of the games. The Patriots after all did beat New York at the end of the regular season in what was also a close game. They were clearly two closely matched teams, and the gap wasn't very big. The Giants actually did win and are 100% the rightful champions of that season, but weren't necessarily the best (in my opinion, but maybe New York would have beaten New England a higher percentage of the times had the hypothetical been played out). The NBA, MLB, and NHL all have series to determine their champions, which allows for a more accurate way of choosing the best team. I greatly prefer the NFL's single elimination, despite the fact that I don't believe it gives as accurate a determination.

I think it would be 3:1 in the Pats favor (that year).

NY+Giants=NYG
07-29-2012, 05:38 PM
I think it would be 3:1 in the Pats favor (that year).

Clearly you are under rating us. Barely a top 10? Not to mention 3 to 1, yet the first time we played we had a good size lead on them, only for the pats to valiantly come back and win the game. The next time we played in the super bowl we won by 3. So we lost by 3 after having a good size lead and came back after being down to win by 3.

3rd Quarter

NYG - Plaxico Burress 19 yard pass from Eli Manning (Lawrence Tynes kick), 9:12. Giants 28-16. Drive: 7 plays, 60 yards, 4:10.


We were up by 12 points in the 3rd quarter and couldn't close the deal. Very frustrating watching the defense not close out. However, it was that game that gave the team confidence and made them realize that they can go toe to toe with the Pats and not have to back down.

It's not like we lost by 45 points.

You have to look at it this way. The way our team is build we are def. a top 10 team AND we can hang with any team in the NFL except for the Saints who royally own us. Maybe if we played them outside the dome in bad weather, perhaps I give us a fighter's chance. But other than that, that list under rates us big time.

I am not saying we are the best team, but top 10 is inaccurate. Football is about match ups and the way Reese has build this team we match up with basically any team very well. It all comes down to our defense and DCs. It always has! Sheridan stunk, and was a one year wonder, and I am still not sold on Fewell. I want him to actually have a good regular season. If we can take a step with that, we are right up there.

bigbluedefense
07-29-2012, 05:44 PM
Redskin fans always get cute this time of year.

Then the season starts. And they stop.

FUNBUNCHER
07-29-2012, 06:01 PM
LOL!
jsagan is a Skins fan like myself, so you have to acknowledge there's a built in bias for him not to include a defending SB champ with nearly all their key players returning as a preseason top 10 team.

IMO he's still severely underrating Eli Manning, which I stopped doing after he won his first SB.

No real preseason top 10 can include the Bears/Eagles/Broncos but exclude the Giants.
If the Giants had beaten overmatched chumps in the SB, or had a weak, cushy path to the SB, maybe I could understand people discrediting what they've accomplished.

But when you look at who they beat to get to the SB in '07 and '11 on the road, then taking it the 'greatest team ever' once, then punking them again in the last SB, that has to factor in to your opinion about the Giants.

Ness
07-29-2012, 06:17 PM
Redskin fans always get cute this time of year.

Then the season starts. And they stop.

I don't understand. What does his affiliation with the Redskins have to do with his point?

Rosebud
07-29-2012, 06:29 PM
Rosebud, i think you're clearly missing the point. I think it's pretty clear that the best team doesn't always win. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find a team in the post season last year that would rather face the Packers, 9ers or probably the saints for that matter, rather than the Giants. I mean even if you go back and look at power rankings for the post season last year and vegas odds of who will win the super bowl that the giants were probably middle of the pack at best. Going into next season I don't even think the Giants are the best team in the East and a more of a barely top 10 team.

My pre season top 10

Packers
Pats
9ers
Texans
Bears
Steelers
Saints
Ravens
Eagles
Bronco's (if peyton is healthy)

Next tier is falcons, dallas, NYG, lions

Teams on the rise Skins, KC, Tampa, Carolina,

You're talking about expectations/predictions/etc., I'm talking about performance, how they actually played. During the playoffs, the Giants play on the field, was superior to that of the Packers and Falcons by a lot, better than the Patriots and on par with 49ers. That's my argument, not that winning 4 playoffs games makes them the best team to play in the playoffs last year.

Not talking about how they looked going to the playoffs, they're talent, outlook or anything like that, just how they actually played on the field during the playoffs.

jsagan77
07-29-2012, 06:48 PM
Maybe I am but that's a good thing right? I mean both. Years you won the SB you barely even made the playoffs, Coughlin was on the hot seat and Eli was a borderline bust in 2007. His record as a starter is 65-50 with an 8-3 post season record. So while I admit they've bern good in the playoffs they've been pretty lack luster during the regular season. If they can come out and disprove that this season, I'll change my tune but let's face it they're playing in a tough division, have a huge bullseye on their back, and they have a tough Schedule that gets exceptionally brutal the 2nd half of the season. If they make the playoffs this year I'll be suprised.

And I don't put teams in my power rankings based off of anything except for how I think they'll be that particular year. IMHO people are overrating the Giants just because they won the Super Bowl.


As far as being a skins fan, im probably the most objective skins fan you will meet. I think it will take a miracle for us to win 10 games this year. Heck if we win 7 I'll be suprised. Our schedule is tough, we have secondary problems, a problem at RT, a lot of potential at the skill positions (still worst in the NFC East), and a Rookie signal caller.

The NFL is a topsy turvy league so there are always suprises, risers and fallers. I think the Bears with a healthy Cutler/Forte, good D, and revamped recieving core shpuld scare everyone. I think Newton will fall to earth. I worry about the Texans losing their DC. I think the Bengals regress and the Browns progress. The Giants will be tough but probably won't win the division and i think they'll miss the playoffs. I think Seattle, KC, and Titans will be much improved as well.

Just looking at the skill level of all the teams going into next season it's going to be one of the toughest most fun to watch seasons in the history of the league.

Clearly you are under rating us. Barely a top 10? Not to mention 3 to 1, yet the first time we played we had a good size lead on them, only for the pats to valiantly come back and win the game. The next time we played in the super bowl we won by 3. So we lost by 3 after having a good size lead and came back after being down to win by 3.




We were up by 12 points in the 3rd quarter and couldn't close the deal. Very frustrating watching the defense not close out. However, it was that game that gave the team confidence and made them realize that they can go toe to toe with the Pats and not have to back down.

It's not like we lost by 45 points.

You have to look at it this way. The way our team is build we are def. a top 10 team AND we can hang with any team in the NFL except for the Saints who royally own us. Maybe if we played them outside the dome in bad weather, perhaps I give us a fighter's chance. But other than that, that list under rates us big time.

I am not saying we are the best team, but top 10 is inaccurate. Football is about match ups and the way Reese has build this team we match up with basically any team very well. It all comes down to our defense and DCs. It always has! Sheridan stunk, and was a one year wonder, and I am still not sold on Fewell. I want him to actually have a good regular season. If we can take a step with that, we are right up there.

Bert Macklin
07-29-2012, 07:04 PM
I picked the saints because I'm a homer and proud of it. I know after Brees we're probably going back to 7-9 8-8 seasons so I'm enjoying the bragging while I can.

Rosebud
07-29-2012, 07:59 PM
jsagan, what does your post have to do with this thread? If you want to talk about the giants coming out after a superbowl and having a great follow up season, look no further than the last time the giants won the SB, the following year they were the best regular season team before Plax shot himself and the team's passing game imploded in the playoffs, so there's that.

We'll see whether they are able to repeat that, minus the Plax-tardation at the end. The question isn't talent, seeing how well they played in the playoffs despite having to deal with a lot of injuries. But again this has little to do with the purpose of this thread, which is to reflect on last season, not speculate on the coming one.

jsagan77
07-29-2012, 08:42 PM
jsagan, what does your post have to do with this thread? If you want to talk about the giants coming out after a superbowl and having a great follow up season, look no further than the last time the giants won the SB, the following year they were the best regular season team before Plax shot himself and the team's passing game imploded in the playoffs, so there's that.

We'll see whether they are able to repeat that, minus the Plax-tardation at the end. The question isn't talent, seeing how well they played in the playoffs despite having to deal with a lot of injuries. But again this has little to do with the purpose of this thread, which is to reflect on last season, not speculate on the coming one.


I was just expanding on the premise that someone said I completely underrated the Giants. I think I rate them just fine... The topic that was being discussed at that point in time was relevent to my post.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-29-2012, 09:15 PM
Maybe I am but that's a good thing right? I mean both. Years you won the SB you barely even made the playoffs, Coughlin was on the hot seat and Eli was a borderline bust in 2007. His record as a starter is 65-50 with an 8-3 post season record. So while I admit they've bern good in the playoffs they've been pretty lack luster during the regular season. If they can come out and disprove that this season, I'll change my tune but let's face it they're playing in a tough division, have a huge bullseye on their back, and they have a tough Schedule that gets exceptionally brutal the 2nd half of the season. If they make the playoffs this year I'll be suprised.

And I don't put teams in my power rankings based off of anything except for how I think they'll be that particular year. IMHO people are overrating the Giants just because they won the Super Bowl.


As far as being a skins fan, im probably the most objective skins fan you will meet. I think it will take a miracle for us to win 10 games this year. Heck if we win 7 I'll be suprised. Our schedule is tough, we have secondary problems, a problem at RT, a lot of potential at the skill positions (still worst in the NFC East), and a Rookie signal caller.

The NFL is a topsy turvy league so there are always suprises, risers and fallers. I think the Bears with a healthy Cutler/Forte, good D, and revamped recieving core shpuld scare everyone. I think Newton will fall to earth. I worry about the Texans losing their DC. I think the Bengals regress and the Browns progress. The Giants will be tough but probably won't win the division and i think they'll miss the playoffs. I think Seattle, KC, and Titans will be much improved as well.

Just looking at the skill level of all the teams going into next season it's going to be one of the toughest most fun to watch seasons in the history of the league.



Barely made it? We were 10-6 got one wildcard and last season we won our freaking division. LOL. Barely made it. Christ all might, you make it sound like we limped in at 7-9 or 8-8. Eli was no where near a border line bust. We got rid of personalities on this team AND made one big coaching change at OC, and that was all that was needed. Firing Hufangel was the best thing possible.

Well, I do agree the schedule is the hardest and we may very well not make it. It's not a reflection of the talent on this team, and as for Eli's record, what he has to play defense now too? How many defensive coordinators have we had since Coughlin took over in 2004? How many DCs has big ben had since 2004?

Why don't you actually look at the offense where Eli is controlling rather than focusing on stuff he can't control, unless you want him playing defense too. Not to mention our system is one of the hardest in the NFL. High risk/high reward which has a lot of qualities of the run and shoot elements of it.

The list overall you made is inaccurate. You have the Steelers on it. Why? How many players did they lose AND they are installing a brand new offense. Our stuff is the same, and all the coaches are back. We have one of the best HCs in the NFL and a top 5 or so QB, and still now on it.

But like the others said, I didn't realize you were a redskins fan. It does explain a whole hell of a lot.



I actually didn't know you were a skins fan, and now that explains a whole hell of a lot actually.

jsagan77
07-29-2012, 11:49 PM
Barely made it? We were 10-6 got one wildcard and last season we won our freaking division. LOL. Barely made it. Christ all might, you make it sound like we limped in at 7-9 or 8-8. Eli was no where near a border line bust. We got rid of personalities on this team AND made one big coaching change at OC, and that was all that was needed. Firing Hufangel was the best thing possible.

Well, I do agree the schedule is the hardest and we may very well not make it. It's not a reflection of the talent on this team, and as for Eli's record, what he has to play defense now too? How many defensive coordinators have we had since Coughlin took over in 2004? How many DCs has big ben had since 2004?

Why don't you actually look at the offense where Eli is controlling rather than focusing on stuff he can't control, unless you want him playing defense too. Not to mention our system is one of the hardest in the NFL. High risk/high reward which has a lot of qualities of the run and shoot elements of it.

The list overall you made is inaccurate. You have the Steelers on it. Why? How many players did they lose AND they are installing a brand new offense. Our stuff is the same, and all the coaches are back. We have one of the best HCs in the NFL and a top 5 or so QB, and still now on it.

But like the others said, I didn't realize you were a redskins fan. It does explain a whole hell of a lot.



I actually didn't know you were a skins fan, and now that explains a whole hell of a lot actually.

You do realize you were 8-7 going into the final game of the season, right?

NY+Giants=NYG
07-30-2012, 08:11 AM
You do realize you were 8-7 going into the final game of the season, right?

Yeah, so? That one game was for everything. Win and you win your division lose and you go home. Us vs the Cowboys for the division & post season. You don't get any bigger than that during the regular season. So our final regular season record was 9-7, NFC East champion, and got our ticket punched.

But I am done with this thread since it's not the NFC East thread.

bigbluedefense
07-30-2012, 08:30 AM
I don't understand. What does his affiliation with the Redskins have to do with his point?

Because his bias as a Skins fan is clearly effecting his rational. I'm not asking anyone to acknowledge the Giants as the best team in the league last year. I can understand the arguments against them.

But when you say they weren't even a top 10 team in the league last year after winning the damn Super Bowl that's just assanine.

Giantsfan1080
07-30-2012, 10:12 AM
I was done with this thread but to say the Giants last year or this year are barely a top 10 team is asinine. We probably have one of the most talented teams in the NFL this year position by position. Our depth is also pretty incredible in the salary cap era. We're going to cut a few players this year that go on to other teams and have success. Barely a top 10 team? That's honestly laughable.

jsagan77
07-30-2012, 04:06 PM
I was done with this thread but to say the Giants last year or this year are barely a top 10 team is asinine. We probably have one of the most talented teams in the NFL this year position by position. Our depth is also pretty incredible in the salary cap era. We're going to cut a few players this year that go on to other teams and have success. Barely a top 10 team? That's honestly laughable.

So who's being bias based on the team they like?

The Giants are WAY over hyped IMHO (mostly by their fans and band wagoners that are incapable of seeing the whole story)...

Even Vegas agrees with me.

Packers 13/2
Pats 8/1
9ers 10/1
Bronco’s 12/1
Texans 12/1
Eagles 14/1
Ravens 16/1
Bears 18/1
Saints 18/1
Giants 18/1
Steelers 18/1

I don't have them in the same class as the 4 other teams that are 18/1 to win it all and the fact that their division is brutal I'll be shocked if they make the playoffs.


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1248276-summer-super-bowl-odds-for-the-2012-13-nfl-season/page/11


I'm not sure where these guys got their numbers though, because the MGM Grand's sport book are different but regardless, both lists back my point that the Giants don't seem as if they are the best team in their division.

Giantsfan1080
07-30-2012, 04:09 PM
Yeah because the Vegas odds are the be all end all when it comes to ranking talent. The odds are hard for the Giants because statistically speaking it's very difficult to repeat as SB winners so Vegas has that factored in.

Like I said the Giants have one of the most talented rosters in the NFL from players 1-53. Hopefully they show up and play that way which I think they will.

jsagan77
07-30-2012, 04:19 PM
Because his bias as a Skins fan is clearly effecting his rational. I'm not asking anyone to acknowledge the Giants as the best team in the league last year. I can understand the arguments against them.

But when you say they weren't even a top 10 team in the league last year after winning the damn Super Bowl that's just assanine.

It's so funny how hypocritical people are... YOUR bias for the Giants is clouding YOUR vision of how mediocre you all were until you guys got hott in the playoffs.

Starting the playoffs they were ranking #10 out of 12 teams.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/don_banks/01/04/playoff.power.rankings/index.html

Week 17, USA Today poll you were ranked #11
http://sportsdirect.usatoday.com/Power-Ranking/NFL-Power-Ranking.aspx

Week 16, USA Today Poll you were ranked #14
http://sportsdirect.usatoday.com/Power-Ranking/NFL-Power-Ranking.aspx?week=16

Week 15, USA Today Poll you were ranked #10
http://sportsdirect.usatoday.com/Power-Ranking/NFL-Power-Ranking.aspx?week=15

Week 14, USA Today Poll you were ranked #11
http://sportsdirect.usatoday.com/Power-Ranking/NFL-Power-Ranking.aspx?week=14

Week 13, USA Today Poll you were ranked #12
http://sportsdirect.usatoday.com/Power-Ranking/NFL-Power-Ranking.aspx?week=13

jsagan77
07-30-2012, 04:21 PM
Yeah because the Vegas odds are the be all end all when it comes to ranking talent. The odds are hard for the Giants because statistically speaking it's very difficult to repeat as SB winners so Vegas has that factored in.

Like I said the Giants have one of the most talented rosters in the NFL from players 1-53. Hopefully they show up and play that way which I think they will.

I don't think you guys have THAT talented of a roster. You guys do draft well, but for the most part I think you guys are right in the top 10 from bottom to top.

And there is a reason Vegas exists and it ain't to lose money.. Just FYI..

Rosebud
07-30-2012, 05:00 PM
I haven't seen someone care so much about power rankings on this board in a while, but w/e. The giants weren't mediocre because of the talent, as evidenced by the superbowl run and being the best team in the playoffs, but because of Perry Fewell needing to come to the brink of a player mutiny, before giving up on his overly complex zone schemes and bringing a 4th pass rusher.

So even if you ignore the following march to the playoffs where the giants ***** smacked the falcons and Packers, squeezed past the 9ers and handled the Pats, the giants are still a lot more talent than you're trying to make them out to be. Top 3 safety duo, a lot of depth at corner, talented OLBs, amazing staple of DEs, a really good pair of DTs, two stud WRs with a bunch of talented youngsters, a strong set of RBs and an elite QB. That's a lot of talent and talent is never their problem. Injuries and keeping heads out of asses, both players and coaches' heads, are the giants problems, that's why they play so much better under pressure than when they're front running, when you're season's on the line you just can't keep winning with heads in asses.

cmarq83
07-30-2012, 05:13 PM
So even if you ignore the following march to the playoffs where the giants ***** smacked the falcons and Packers, squeezed past the 9ers and handled the Pats, the giants are still a lot more talent than you're trying to make them out to be. Top 3 safety duo, a lot of depth at corner, talented OLBs, amazing staple of DEs, a really good pair of DTs, two stud WRs with a bunch of talented youngsters, a strong set of RBs and an elite QB. That's a lot of talent and talent is never their problem. Injuries and keeping heads out of asses, both players and coaches' heads, are the giants problems, that's why they play so much better under pressure than when they're front running, when you're season's on the line you just can't keep winning with heads in asses.

I don't really want to get into a pissing contest about this, because it's ultimately irrelevant, but the Giants in no way handled the Patriots in the Super Bowl. You guys scored within the last minute to beat us by 4 points in a game that could very well have been iced if Welker caught the ball. You've mentioned it multiple times so I just wanted to clarify that. What's done is done, but with a little luck that game could have gone either way.

jsagan77
07-30-2012, 06:31 PM
I guess I'm the only one who doesn't think Eli is elite? The elite QB's in my book are Rodgers, Brady, Brees, and Healthy Peyton. Just because you win a couple SB's does not make you elite at your position. He and Ben are very similar to me and start that next tier of very good, but not elite QB's. (not yet anyway)

WCH
07-30-2012, 07:49 PM
I guess I'm the only one who doesn't think Eli is elite? The elite QB's in my book are Rodgers, Brady, Brees, and Healthy Peyton. Just because you win a couple SB's does not make you elite at your position. He and Ben are very similar to me and start that next tier of very good, but not elite QB's. (not yet anyway)

I'd be inclined to agree, but I guess it depends on how we're defining "elite." I think that Rodgers, Brady, Brees, and Healthy Peyton are clearly in a different tier than the next group of guys.

FUNBUNCHER
07-30-2012, 10:49 PM
The only way Eli Manning at this point in his career isn't defined as 'elite' is if you only are going by passing stats.

Brees is a stat guy. Peyton is a stat guy. Stats are great for a QB, but QBs are still defined by wins.

jsagan77
07-30-2012, 11:55 PM
The only way Eli Manning at this point in his career isn't defined as 'elite' is if you only are going by passing stats.

Brees is a stat guy. Peyton is a stat guy. Stats are great for a QB, but QBs are still defined by wins.


Even if u define as wins eli is 65-50 in the regular season and 73-53 total which I don't consider near elite.

Brothgar
07-31-2012, 01:10 AM
After looking a neat little stat I'm building I think you could make a very strong case for the Giants being the best team in the NFL last year and the Packers actually being 3rd. It is based off from this premise.

What's more impressive? Sweeping the Bucs last season or beating the Cowboys once? It'd be just about the same right? It is much harder to beat the better team than to beat one of the worst teams in the league. So I decided to look into how many victories that the teams defeated by the subject team (ie the giants) had including the playoffs.

I know what you are thinking
"But but broth this skews the stat in favor of those who go deeper in the playoffs." which is true how great of a team can you claim to be if you are losing early in the playoffs? But it does not instantly turn into oh they won the super bowl thus must be the better team argument. Because IE the 2007 patriots wipe the floor with the 2007 Giants or the more recent Steelers who lost to the Broncos in the playoffs the Steelers were still the better team by this stat.

FUNBUNCHER
07-31-2012, 02:08 AM
Even if u define as wins eli is 65-50 in the regular season and 73-53 total which I don't consider near elite.

Two SB appearances, two Lombardis.
One against the current 'best NFL team' ever.
There are wins, and there are WINS.

If things were reversed and the SKins had the Giants success under Eli including two SBs in 5 years, I'd be ready to punch someone in the mouth, figuratively speaking:angel:, if they tried to argue that Eli wasn't 'elite'.

Bucs_Rule
07-31-2012, 05:22 AM
After looking a neat little stat I'm building I think you could make a very strong case for the Giants being the best team in the NFL last year and the Packers actually being 3rd. It is based off from this premise.

What's more impressive? Sweeping the Bucs last season or beating the Cowboys once? It'd be just about the same right? It is much harder to beat the better team than to beat one of the worst teams in the league. So I decided to look into how many victories that the teams defeated by the subject team (ie the giants) had including the playoffs.

I know what you are thinking
"But but broth this skews the stat in favor of those who go deeper in the playoffs." which is true how great of a team can you claim to be if you are losing early in the playoffs? But it does not instantly turn into oh they won the super bowl thus must be the better team argument. Because IE the 2007 patriots wipe the floor with the 2007 Giants or the more recent Steelers who lost to the Broncos in the playoffs the Steelers were still the better team by this stat.

You also have to consider loses. The Packers had two, the Giants and the Chiefs. The Giants had 7, including two ugly loses to the Redskins.

FUNBUNCHER
07-31-2012, 07:28 AM
You also have to consider loses. The Packers had two, the Giants and the Chiefs. The Giants had 7, including two ugly loses to the Redskins.

Shame on you.:spam:

NY+Giants=NYG
07-31-2012, 08:20 AM
Put it in the NFC East thread. Let's not mess up this thread.

KCStud
08-01-2012, 06:38 PM
To be honest I think the Ravens were the best team in the league last year. They were very up and down at times, but they beat the elite teams.

It's a shame that Lee Evans and their stupid FG kicker ruined it for them. I think if they went to the SB they would have beaten the Giants.

BigBanger
08-02-2012, 02:31 PM
The Packers were not the best team last year. If they were, they would have been repeat champions. They had the best player in the game at the most crucial position. But to go along with that? An absolutely terrible defense. A running game that only looked average because the best player in the sport was so damn good. They faced a better, more complete team (Giants) with a QB who played extremely well in the postseason during a career year.

The Giants were the best team in the NFL. Yeah, their record sucked, but they decisively beat 3 of the top 4 contenders to win the Super Bowl (Patriots, 49ers, Packers). It wasn't a fluke that they went to, or won the Super Bowl. Everything came together late in the season. They were playing as good as anyone. Better than most.

The Saints looked just as unbeatable going into the postseason as any other team last year. The Giants went through a gauntlet. Probably the toughest road to the Super Bowl since the Steelers won it when they beat the top 3 seeds in the AFC, and then the top seed in the NFC (Seahawks).

The Giants also, basically, played in 5 postseason games. Their play-in game in week 17 against the Cowboys, then the four playoff games. At the end of the season, they had a team that could have beaten anyone. And they did. That was a pretty special team. To do what they did, with the road to the Super Bowl that they had... Damn good team. They made the Falcons look like a 3 win team. They made the Packers look mediocre. They made Rodgers look mediocre. Eli Manning's season is also very underrated. That was one of the best seasons a QB has had in recent memory (factoring in playoffs).

I'm also of the opinion that the team that wins the Super Bowl is usually the best. Especially when the team that wins (underdog) beats the team that everyone considers the best.

Brothgar
08-02-2012, 06:16 PM
You also have to consider loses. The Packers had two, the Giants and the Chiefs. The Giants had 7, including two ugly loses to the Redskins.

even if you decided to count losses as a negative that makes the pats the best team.

LonghornsLegend
08-02-2012, 06:55 PM
Eli Manning's season is also very underrated. That was one of the best seasons a QB has had in recent memory (factoring in playoffs).

I find this hard to believe when it wasn't even the best season last year. May not have been top 3. So to call it the best season a QB has had in recent memory is going way over board. He made some huge throws in the playoffs, no doubt about it, but let's not make it something it wasn't.

robert pancake gallery
08-02-2012, 07:01 PM
it hardly matters who the "best team" was if they didn't win the super bowl. and by hardly of course i mean doesn't.

BigBanger
08-04-2012, 06:41 AM
I find this hard to believe when it wasn't even the best season last year. May not have been top 3. So to call it the best season a QB has had in recent memory is going way over board. He made some huge throws in the playoffs, no doubt about it, but let's not make it something it wasn't.
It was ONE OF THE BEST seasons a QB has had in recent memory. I will concede the fact that Aaron Rodgers was far better last year (regular season), and, arguably, had a better season since he shattered records to such a gaudy degree. Rodgers' last two seasons were better than Manning's season last year (with 2010 being indisputable).

But, if you factor in playoffs, I would consider Eli's 2011 season the best of any QB in the NFL last year. I think there is a good argument for Rodgers, but when it comes down Eli playing in 4 playoff games compared to Rodgers' 1, and to see how well Eli played in all 4 of those games to the 1 mediocre game Rodgers had, then I would probably consider the guy with the Super Bowl MVP award as having the better season.

When you consider what Eli did, even from a statistical standpoint, it was a pretty rare season. Then when you consider how clutch he was, it tends to make last year a rare one and, in my eyes, one of the best seasons a QB has had in recent memory. In 2011 he threw (15) 4th QT TD passes, an NFL record. He tied an NFL record for most game winning drives in a single regular season with 8. He finished the postseason with 2 more game-winning drives in the biggest games of the year, making (10). (6) of them being comeback wins. He set the NFL record for most passing yards in a postseason with over 1,200 passing yards.

If that doesn't show important he was, and how great he was in late in game, in pressure situations, then I don't know what does. For 16 weeks, I'd say Rodgers had the best season of any QB. For 20 weeks, I'd say it was Eli.

I am a far greater fan of Rodgers than I am just about any player in the NFL. I have no bias in this matter.