What team had the best aerial options since the merger?

[Sloopy]

Originally Posted by Sportsfan486

I'm pretty sure I said Colston would be GB's #3. And yes, Finley would still be ahead of him for targets. And the fact that you even mentioned Colston and Jennings in the same sentence is, to be brutally honest, ignorant. Also, how does Rodgers make his receivers good yet Brees doesn't do the same? Way to fail at making a point.

I never said Brees didn't make Colston, the point is that neither are on a Megatron, Fitz, Dre etc. level. I'd put them in both in that 2nd tier of WRs, still viable #1 options but not elite.

So yea, they kind of are in the same breath.

I don't know that Finely would be ahead of Colston in terms of targets. Finley was targeted 92 times this year while Colston was targeted 107 times, fairly even.

However, even if Colston was #2 to Jennings, Nelson even edged Finley in targets this year. I would argue that Colston would get more targets as the #2 WR than Nelson and Colston undoubtedly has more reliable hands than Finley.

Still, now we are just arguing hypotheticals which can never be proven right or wrong

The Pats and Packers have the better QBs. Like I said. I suppose you could argue Brees is better than Brady but there isn't a coach or GM that would take Brees over Rodgers right now. Are you really going to argue that?

I love the, "GMs would do (insert statement here) so I am clearly right" argument.

You have NO idea what GMs would do, nor do I, so this is a pointless argument.

Yards. What do yards get you, exactly? They broke YARDAGE records. I'm sorry but who cares? They didn't break scoring records and, frankly, their passing attack is based extensively on what are effectively long handoffs.

Yardage gets you closer to the goal line to score.

I did point out earlier that an argument could be made for the Pats the year they broke the passing record. Still, a record is a record.

And they had a whooping 400 more passing yards than the Packers, even with the Packers letting off the gas consistently in games they were blowing out on route to 15-1.

They also had one more passing TD than the Pack, either way you look at it, they were better than the pack this year.

Stats aren't everything.

I believe I stated the same thing earlier, but you can't ignore a record breaking season by saying stats don't matter.

The Packers are clearly the superior passing team (do I have to explain that one?

Yes...

Please tell me under what logic that the pack had a better passing attack.

Brees had a better completion percentage and yards per game average.

They were very close this year, but the fact is that this particular year, the Saints passing attack was better.

They have the best QB and the best overall passing weapons and they scored more PPG with much less of a running game.

The passing attack of NO scored more ppg than the packs passing attack... so yea.

I won't even dignify your best QB comment with a response. RODGERZZZZZ is very good, he may be the best in the league... last year, Brees was better, just the way that it is.

Don't really get how the receiving corps is better for the pack, specifically this year. Nelson was the only receiver to break 1,000 yards, after that they only had 4 other guys break 400 yards.

The Saints had TWO players break 1,000 yards with 5 more breaking 400 yards.

Again, stats aren't everything but the saints have a large number of 2nd and 3rd tier WRs they can go to, GB has one 2nd tier guy and a few 3rd tier guys.

The Patriots and Saints are close, more 2a and 2b, but Gronkowski is obviously better than Graham (as excellent as Graham is,) and the receiving core is better.

How do you figure this one? Yea, Gronk trumps Graham. After that I would probably have to go with the Saints WRs if you were to make lists in descending order.

And for your stats.. go rewatch Packers games towards the middle of the 3rd quarter and Saints games at the end of the 4th. Notably blowouts. The difference? Packers pulled Rodgers early in every blowout while the Saints kept Brees in. Yet still scored more points.

A. Brees had more passing TDs than Rodgers, so I really don't get why it matters that the pack scored more points overall since we are talking about passing attacks here.

B. Thats fine and well, we could postulate that Rodgers would have had a better season if he had stayed in, but he didn't and all we can make judgments on are known quantities, i.e. Brees having a better season than Rodgers.

The Packers had 5 more passing touchdowns than the Saints and 6 less INTs. Despite above factual. They scored more POINTS PER GAME than the Saints despite a clearly inferior rushing game (again, anyone going to argue that?) Yes. They're a better aerial attack.

Still, Rodgers had less passing TDs than Brees, I don't care what your backup QB can do for you.

I'll agree that the Saints and Pats are 2a and 2b. The Packers are clearly superior.

Clearly, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

As for the Saints last year not being top 5... again, you're stuck on stats. Rule changes have catered to offensive number explosion, most notably in the passing game. You can't compare stats from now and 10 years ago; apples and oranges. You have to compare within the framework of the other offenses of the time.

The Pats and Colts being some of the main opponents to the Saints teams, also had the same benefits. Furthermore, the Rams, 49ers, and Vikings teams being mentioned also benefited from the 5 yard rules etc. that were already being imposed around or before their time.

Some of those Niners and Rams teams, the Pats in 2007. You have to have them top 5. Ditto for the Packers last year.

LOL, you must be some kind of homer if your putting a passing attack that wasn't even the best passing attack this year in the same conversation as the 07 Pats, niners and Rams.

At least there is an argument for the Saints.

[gpngc]

This is the group that changed the game:

Kurt Warner
Issac Bruce
Torry Holt
Az Hakim
Ricky Proehl
Marshall Faulk

[Sportsfan486]

Originally Posted by Sloopy

They also had one more passing TD than the Pack, either way you look at it, they were better than the pack this year.
The passing attack of NO scored more ppg than the packs passing attack... so yea..

Actually, um, no.

That's simply and factually incorrect. The Packers scored 5 more passing touchdowns than the Saints. That is a fact that you can check in any one of hundreds of public domains of information.

I want to say more but my mother always said..

[BloodBrother]

Packers had 51 passing TD's last season, which I think tied the 04 Colts for most passing TD's in a season

[Ness]

Originally Posted by gpngc

This is the group that changed the game:

Kurt Warner
Issac Bruce
Torry Holt
Az Hakim
Ricky Proehl
Marshall Faulk

Three years in a row #1 in points scored. That's ridiculous.

[Sloopy]

Originally Posted by Sportsfan486

Actually, um, no.

That's simply and factually incorrect. The Packers scored 5 more passing touchdowns than the Saints. That is a fact that you can check in any one of hundreds of public domains of information.

I want to say more but my mother always said..

Your absolutely right. Your back up QB scored a few extra TDs.

However, Brees still scored more TDs than Rodgers and as I said, I don't care what your back up QB can do for you.

You simply have 0 facts which back up your argument that the passing attack of GB this year was better than that of the Saints, hence your "dumb ass" comment in your neg rep post. I generally find that personal attacks come when their is lack of other subtense to an argument, this holds true in your case.

It's fine if you have a hard on for Rodgers or if your a GB fan, but maybe you should take your own advice and get in touch with reality.

This years GB team simply has no argument for being the best passing attack this year, much less one of the greatest aerial attacks since the merger.

I can understand supporting and believing in your team but your just taking it to far and not looking at this objectively.

[Gay Ork Wang]

Is sloppy a Saints fan?

[WCH]

Originally Posted by Sloopy

This years GB team simply has no argument for being the best passing attack this year, much less one of the greatest aerial attacks since the merger.

I can understand supporting and believing in your team but your just taking it to far and not looking at this objectively.

I wouldn't say that there's no argument for GB. FootballOutsiders has them ranked ahead of the Saints by quite a wide margin, and it's hard to get much more "objective" than using mathematical models of efficiency based on 19 years of play-by-play data.

In terms of having the best passing options ever, I don't think either team is even in the discussion at this point in time. They simply aren't at the same talent levels as the Bills and Rams teams that were previously mentioned.

[Sloopy]

Originally Posted by *** Ork Wang

Is sloppy a Saints fan?

Check out the sig :)

Ravens baby :P

Originally Posted by WCH

I wouldn't say that there's no argument for GB. FootballOutsiders has them ranked ahead of the Saints by quite a wide margin, and it's hard to get much more "objective" than using mathematical models of efficiency based on 19 years of play-by-play data.

It certainly is one way to look at it.

Again, I'm not saying that the Packers weren't a good (very good) passing team this year, that would be ignorant.

And I guess saying that there is no argument is harsh. However, in the case of sportsfan, his only arguments appear to be that the pack had 51 total passing touchdowns and everything else is just opinionated crap to be frank. Arguments such as: If Colston was on the Packers, he wouldn't beat out Finley for targets.

In terms of having the best passing options ever, I don't think either team is even in the discussion at this point in time. They simply aren't at the same talent levels as the Bills and Rams teams that were previously mentioned.

I agree that these teams had bigger names, but I still think one has to look at production as a key factor here. Hence why I have the Pats and Saints as my top two with me slightly favoring the Saints although I understand the Pats argument and certainly don't reject it's validity.

The fact is the Saints put together quite a season with some impressive #s from there receiving corps, better #s than teams with bigger names.

Certainly Moss, Rice, etc. are better receivers than Colston and if you were drafting in some sort of fantasy draft you would take them over Colston, but as a unit, this team has a very potent passing attack, more potent than the Rams or Bills had despite bigger names.

[BandwagonPunditry]

Surprised the 1980s Chargers haven't got a mention yet: (edit: they have been, my bad)

Dan Fouts
Charlie Joiner
John Jefferson/Wes Chandler
Kellen Winslow

Three hall of famers in that list and Don Coryell calling the shots. It was a game changing aerial offense.

[J52]

Duper/Clayton/Marino or greatest show on turf. Those two regimes changed the world. Marino and crew took the previous records in passing and shattered all of them with Duper and Clayton.

Warner and crew took the game from what it used to be to the ridiculous pass only game that football has became recently.

[badgerbacker]

Originally Posted by Sloopy

Your absolutely right. Your back up QB scored a few extra TDs.

However, Brees still scored more TDs than Rodgers and as I said, I don't care what your back up QB can do for you.

Sloopy, the thread is "What team had the best aerial options since the merger" not "what quarterback had the best statistical season"

The fact that the Packers back up QB was putting up huge numbers should be used as further evidence as to how dominant the overall attack was. You can't throw out a back-up's stats when talking about team performance.

To say that there is no argument against the Saints is a little short-sighted. Basically the only argument the Saints have over the Packers is total yardage. The Packers had a better yards/attempt, passer rating, more passing TDs, fewer INTs, and a better overall record.

[Sloopy]

Originally Posted by badgerbacker

Sloopy, the thread is "What team had the best aerial options since the merger" not "what quarterback had the best statistical season"

The fact that the Packers back up QB was putting up huge numbers should be used as further evidence as to how dominant the overall attack was. You can't throw out a back-up's stats when talking about team performance.

That's fair. Still IIRC it was by one TD, meanwhile the Saints still put up a record breaking season for yards.

To say that there is no argument against the Saints is a little short-sighted. Basically the only argument the Saints have over the Packers is total yardage. The Packers had a better yards/attempt, passer rating, more passing TDs, fewer INTs, and a better overall record.

I don't think I said that there is no argument against the saints. In fact I believe that I said there is similarly a good argument for the Pats.

What I did say is that there isn't a real argument for the Pack as the best passing attack this year.

I'm not sure what overall record has to do with the passing attack, yes you can argue that the offense carried the team, but W/L is a team stat.

Packers had better yards per attempt and passer rating etc. but the Saints still outproduced them.

I understand that yards aren't everything, but I have to laugh at the idea that a record breaking season would be trumped by the third best passing attack in the league last year.

Either way, this isn't an thread about the best passing attack last year. it IS about who has had the best aerial options since the merger.

For that discussion, the 2011 Packers really don't have an argument. The Saints do, as they are statistically the 1b (1a as the Pats, no particular order) one of the best passing attacks EVER.

Others in the argument include the Rams, 49'ers and some others which have been named.

[WCH]

Originally Posted by Sloopy

I agree that these teams had bigger names, but I still think one has to look at production as a key factor here. Hence why I have the Pats and Saints as my top two with me slightly favoring the Saints although I understand the Pats argument and certainly don't reject it's validity.

I agree that production is a key factor, and the Saints certainly produced. For my money, though, I'm still going with the Reed/Lofton/etc lineup. James Lofton's best days were behind him by the time he played for the Bills, but he was still a great player for them. I think that a lot of people forget how insanely good he was.

This current Pats squad is interesting because their most dangerous weapons are the two TEs and a slot receiver. If you had told me a few years ago that an offense like that would have one of the top passing attacks in the NFL, I'd have thought that you were batshit insane.

[Sloopy]

True, but when they broke records they had Moss so it's not only the TE's.

Can't Imagine what that team would be like if Moss were still around with Gronk and Hernandez!!!

[badgerbacker]

Originally Posted by Sloopy

I understand that yards aren't everything, but I have to laugh at the idea that a record breaking season would be trumped by the third best passing attack in the league last year.

Rodgers also had a record breaking season in terms of passer rating, so the Saints weren't the only ones breaking passing records... Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about what is most impressive though *shrugs*

Not trying to be a Packer homer and I don't think they were necessarily the best passing attack last year, but I think they should at least be in the conversation considering how ridiculously efficient they were (and still put up monster totals as well).

Either way, my money goes towards the 2007 Patriots in this thread.

By the way, is the "since the merger" really necessary? Was there some dominant passing attack early in the 20th century that I'm not aware of?

[7DnBrnc53]

Originally Posted by stlouisfan37

As much as I hate to admit it, it's hard to argue against the 49er teams with Montana/Rice/Taylor/Jones/Craig/Rathman. The Greatest Show teams were awfully good as well, but they never had the TE that I always thought would have made them unstoppable had they worked it into the gameplan.

But I actually think that maybe the most well-balanced passing attack could be the current New Orleans team. They had 6 guys with over 500 yards receiving last year, and Pierre Thomas added 425.

I know that the Rams of that period didn't have a great TE, but I don't think that Brent Jones was a great TE, either. He was a slow player that fit a WCO system.

And, while they had a good attack, I don't think that the Niner offenses of the 80's and 90's were as explosive as the Air Coryell Chargers, Greatest Show Rams, late-90's Vikes, or the Pats and Colts of recent years.

[BigBanger]

The 1994 49ers were probably my favorite offensive team I have ever watched.

I think Steve Young is one of the absolute greatest QBs ever. And how he orchestrated that offense... it was masterful. And I think ahead of his time. He was as efficient as QBs are in today's NFL.

Brent Jones was one of the best TEs in the game at the time.

Ricky Watters (over 700 yards receiving in 94) and William Floyd out of the backfield was a great combination. Floyd is also one of my favorite FBs to ever play the game.

And.. Jerry Rice, who was the wide receiving corps.

[VikesWookie]

i liked the oilers wr core w/ moon at the helm as well as the redskins core with rypien slingin the pig. monk, gary clark, ricky sanders with a young brian mitchell.

denver had an extremely efficient wr core in those back to back superbowl years. prolly not the best, but fit perfectly with their scheme (smith,mccaffrey,sharpe)

[Brent]

1998 Minnesota Vikings.