Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

All this week I will be picking out great single year teams and pitting them against this years Patriots lineup. Who wins this game and why?

Ok well I say the Broncos take this. It would be a grueling game but the running game of the Broncos would definitely tire out the Pats defense in the fourth quarter not to mention the time of possession would be in Denvers favor.

98 Broncos was an impressive team. The Steelers beat them in the regular season and I started partying for about 10 straight hours afterwards. Then, of course, they lost to them in the playoffs.

Who wins and why?

Cowboys 7/10. O-line was every bit as insane as the Pats, they had a great D, better running game. And didn't they have Deion in his prime? Deion vs. Moss is a matchup I'd truly like to see.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Cowboys 7/10. O-line was every bit as insane as the Pats, they had a great D, better running game. And didn't they have Deion in his prime? Deion vs. Moss is a matchup I'd truly like to see. Deion didnt come to the Cowboys until 95. He was out of his prime imo at that time but was still the best cover corner. I think thier good corner back then was Kevin Smith. They had Darren Woodson I think at safety. This team was one of the best of all time. They really had no weaknesses and I dont think the Pats defense would stop them at all. The would drive on them at will.

I think I would rather have the 95 Boys though.

Sanders, which is considered the best corner to ever play the game and having Darren Woodson, who I respect alot and I still think he was on of the best all around SS in the NFL. He could cover slot recievers man coverage and do extremely well.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I think I would rather have the 95 Boys though.

Sanders, which is considered the best corner to ever play the game and having Darren Woodson, who I respect alot and I still think he was on of the best all around SS in the NFL. He could cover slot recievers man coverage and do extremely well. They didnt have Alvin Harper though and were nowhere near as dominant as they were in 92. They had a better record a better offense and defense as a whole as well.

They barely beat the Steelers in 95 and it was because of those two horrendous picks thrown to Larry Brown.

I dont go by records, or stats when it comes to having two teams that are facing against each other that are from different decades.

I'm just going by players.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I dont go by records, or stats when it comes to having two teams that are facing against each other that are from different decades.

I'm just going by players. Ok well imo the 92 Cowboys were superior to the 95 Cowboys. Everything backs this up. The 95 boys were the weakest version of the Cowboys in the three years they won it all.

Originally posted by quanchi112
They didnt have Alvin Harper though and were nowhere near as dominant as they were in 92. They had a better record a better offense and defense as a whole as well.

They barely beat the Steelers in 95 and it was because of those two horrendous picks thrown to Larry Brown.

I know deep down in my heart O'donnel wa paid off to throw those interceptions to him.there was not a freaking reciever anywhere nearby when he threw those 2 picks.I could see that happening once,but twice? No way he was paid off.Plus he went and signed for the jets the next year who was like the worst team in the NFL at that time.they only one way game that year so he got to the point where he only played the game for the love of the money instead of the love for the game.I lauhed my ass off when the jets let him go after only being there a couple years.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Ok well imo the 92 Cowboys were superior to the 95 Cowboys. Everything backs this up. The 95 boys were the weakest version of the Cowboys in the three years they won it all.

oh yeah for sure.The 92 Cowboys were easily their best team.Like you or someone else mentioned,thats when they were dominant because thats when they had Alvin Harper.Once they lost Harper to free agency,they lost their swagger and were not near as dominant in 95 as they were in 92.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
oh yeah for sure.The 92 Cowboys were easily their best team.Like you or someone else mentioned,thats when they were dominant because thats when they had Alvin Harper.Once they lost Harper to free agency,they lost their swagger and were not near as dominant in 95 as they were in 92. Yeah the 92 Cowboys are considered by most analysts to be the strongest Cowboys team to date.

Who wins and why?

niners because of Rices' Christ-like abilities.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
I know deep down in my heart O'donnel wa paid off to throw those interceptions to him.there was not a freaking reciever anywhere nearby when he threw those 2 picks.I could see that happening once,but twice? No way he was paid off.Plus he went and signed for the jets the next year who was like the worst team in the NFL at that time.they only one way game that year so he got to the point where he only played the game for the love of the money instead of the love for the game.I lauhed my ass off when the jets let him go after only being there a couple years.

Don't go conspiracy on us. If you win SB's in the NFL you get paid exorbitant amounts of money. Maybe if this was, I dunno lacrosse, you'd have a point. But no, he just threw some sh*tty passes. There's no money in playing badly in the NFL...even if the short-term gain is better, the long-term is painfully worse. Anyone can see that.

And I'm a hardcore Steelers fan, so if there was a case to be made, I'd make it.

Cant we stop doing these threads.

Cant it just be one of them?

Your giving football fans on this forum a bad name. We usually complained about the amount of soccer threads there were, now its the other way around.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Cant we stop doing these threads.

Cant it just be one of them?

Your giving football fans on this forum a bad name. We usually complained about the amount of soccer threads there were, now its the other way around. It is superbowl week and if you dont like this you dont have to post. I said I was going to do this. I never understood posters who dont like the idea of a thread and then posting in it just to complain. Either give your opinion or just ignore the thread.

It's just useless to have a thread for every team that could, or is better than the Patriots of this year.

Why cant it just be one thread?

How many are you going to make?

Keep the the Comic vs. forums or the Pats thread.

Originally posted by quanchi112
It is superbowl week and if you dont like this you dont have to post. I said I was going to do this. I never understood posters who dont like the idea of a thread and then posting in it just to complain. Either give your opinion or just ignore the thread.

Why didn't you just make one thread that says. "What team from the past or present could be the Patriots and why?" instead of spamming a bunch of unnecessary threads?

49ers

Who wins and why? Why????????? Damn it, why??????

Originally posted by Pezmerga
Why didn't you just make one thread that says. "What team from the past or present could be the Patriots and why?" instead of spamming a bunch of unnecessary threads?

Good idea.

This should keep Quanchi confined here till the Superbowl.

Originally posted by botankus
Who wins and why? Why????????? Damn it, why??????

Leave it to you to you to make light of the situation.

And be a dick hahahahah....

I was going to make a thread.

1992 Cowboys without Newton, Novacheck and Jason Garret vs 2007 Patriots without Kevin Faulk, Jabar Gaffney and Chris Hanson. The arena for battle has flamethrowers at the 30 yard line if the QB steps on the 35 yard line pressure plat and a spike trap in the middle of each endzone which the SS can hit the flag pole with only one foot.

Medics are turned off for this match.

Also, its the Patriots home field, so section 105, who bought the $20 beer have the ability to have heak seeking missles. Also, away team gets armour plating helmets only if they get a TD in the first minute of the game.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Don't go conspiracy on us. If you win SB's in the NFL you get paid exorbitant amounts of money. Maybe if this was, I dunno lacrosse, you'd have a point. But no, he just threw some sh*tty passes. There's no money in playing badly in the NFL...even if the short-term gain is better, the long-term is painfully worse. Anyone can see that.

And I'm a hardcore Steelers fan, so if there was a case to be made, I'd make it.

He could have been offered much more money by someone though for those 2 interceptions than he would have got for winning the superbowl.I will be the first to admit I got no proof of it.Nobody does.Its just my gut feeling deep down inside he did because like I said,O'donnel seems like that kind of person who would do that.Look who he signed with the next year.the new york jets,a team that had won only one game the previous year.The guy obviously did not care about winning games at that point in his life and only cared about money.On THIS one,I wont fault you for not agreeing with me since like i said,I dont have any proof to back it up on since its just my gut feeling the way O'donnel went to sign and play for the crappiest team in the league the next year instead of staying with a winning organization.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Who wins and why?

Niners.because like someone said.Jerry Rice and also because they were destined to win it all to show that steve young was capable of replacing joe montana and winning a superbowl for them.a monkey he had to carry on his back and live with for the next couple of years after replacing him.

Who can beat them?

THE ****ING NEW YORK GIANTS THAT'S WHO!!!

He's Eli! He's the man! If he can't do it, no one can! music

Wow. After looking at my last couple of NFL related posts..

I really overreacted.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Wow. After looking at my last couple of NFL related posts..

I really overreacted. That's ok, though. It's expected.

Originally posted by quanchi112
All this week I will be picking out great single year teams and pitting them against this years Patriots lineup. Who wins this game and why? The Giants could, the Giants DID.

'99 Rams

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Who can beat them?

THE ****ING NEW YORK GIANTS THAT'S WHO!!!

So finally, can we stop all this talk about how they are the best team to ever play the game.

And that Brady is the best QB to ever play the game. (Literally, read an article about it today)

I actually really want to read what Bill Simmons have to say about the game. Considering, he's a sportswriter and every second article is about a Boston team and literally the pick article he wrote was all ab out the Patriots and nothing to do with the Giants. I cant wait.

Hopefully, he doesnt blame it on bad officiating. (not saying there was, or wasnt)

best ever?

Yeah, I'm glad that damn talk is over with. Been hearing that shite since week 3.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
best ever?

Not kidding man.

That's what it said.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Good idea.

This should keep Quanchi confined here till the Superbowl. You cant confine quan. Ill always find a way.

The Steel Curtain

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
The Giants could, the Giants DID. Now I guess this makes the Giants the best ever.

No, it doesn't.

Just like when Texas beat USC it didn't make them "the best ever" even though the media proclaimed USC as the best team ever before the game started, though our loss had more to do with the refs and a boneheaded pitch, the Pats offense just got man handled. They weren't saying Texas was the best ever because they hadn't won 34 straight games and 2 straight titles like USC, just like the Giants didn't just come off of a perfect regular season and didn't have the most prolific offense in the history of the NFL.

Giants matched up very well with the Pats because they had a great pass rush, a good secondary that could at least hold off until Brady had enough pressure in his face and an offense that didn't turn the ball over. Giants would win that game 5/10 times.

The similarities between the '05 USC team and this years Pats are amazing. Both had one of the best offenses of all time, and most notably, both were proclaimed as "the best team ever" before the game started and both loss.

I guess that ESPN "best team ever?" segment really gets that opposing team motivated. Maybe they have learned their lesson with these past two defeats.

Anyways, couldn't past up an opportunity to talk about my Trojans.

Giants got hot at the right time, bottom line.

I still think the 85 Bears are the best ever.

The 2007-2008 NYG

Speaking about Lord Evo's post.

TMQ (ESPN Page 2 writer) has stated numerous times that a player who led the league in passing has not won a Superbowl. The Pats lost, so that goes to show you that its still true.

I forget what thread it was, but we had the discussion about offense and defense in the Superbowl. In the end, you need a good defense because no matter what, a good defense could help out a compentent offense. In the regular season, its the other way around (the Pats being the example) but when it matters most, the defense is key.

The Pats had an good defense but it had some huge holes. The LB's are way too old now. Bruschi, Vrabel and Seau are getting up in age and that secondary is good with Samual in it, but if he leaves, its going to suck if they dont fix it.

It will be interesting to see how the Patriots do in the offseason and if there isnt any bad news coming from players (alot of players are playing on the Pats because they assumed they would win a Superbowl), and the whole coaching debacle with Spygate.

But for sure, the Pats should not get McFadden, even if he lands in their laps. I'm pretty sure they wont.

I think Mike Greenberg of "Mike and Mike in the Morning" said "The Best team didn't win but the better team won" or something like that. Overall New England is the best team in the NFL but the better team on sunday won the game.

My thoughts exactly.

On February 3rd, 2008, the New York Giants were simply a better team then the New England Patriots.

Originally posted by TRH
The 2007-2008 NYG

http://usera.imagecave.com/roguejedi/11221.JPG
http://usera.imagecave.com/roguejedi/eli.JPG



crylaugh

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
crylaugh "I tapped dat ass"?

That's really homo-erotic.

I don't think Eli would like to be portrayed in that manner.

Originally posted by Lord Evolution
No, it doesn't.

Just like when Texas beat USC it didn't make them "the best ever" even though the media proclaimed USC as the best team ever before the game started, though our loss had more to do with the refs and a boneheaded pitch, the Pats offense just got man handled. They weren't saying Texas was the best ever because they hadn't won 34 straight games and 2 straight titles like USC, just like the Giants didn't just come off of a perfect regular season and didn't have the most prolific offense in the history of the NFL.

Giants matched up very well with the Pats because they had a great pass rush, a good secondary that could at least hold off until Brady had enough pressure in his face and an offense that didn't turn the ball over. Giants would win that game 5/10 times.

The similarities between the '05 USC team and this years Pats are amazing. Both had one of the best offenses of all time, and most notably, both were proclaimed as "the best team ever" before the game started and both loss.

I guess that ESPN "best team ever?" segment really gets that opposing team motivated. Maybe they have learned their lesson with these past two defeats.

Anyways, couldn't past up an opportunity to talk about my Trojans.

Giants got hot at the right time, bottom line.

I still think the 85 Bears are the best ever. I was kidding man. I didnt think that the Pats were the best ever even if they won it all.

The best ever imo are the niners of 89.

They're not best team ever.

Not at all.

You dont lose the biggest game in the season and still be called the best team, even during the regular season.

Originally posted by Smasandian
They're not best team ever.

Not at all.

You dont lose the biggest game in the season and still be called the best team, even during the regular season. I dont think the 72 dolphins are in the top five greatest single season teams of all time. They never lost a game but against the best we have seen they would get smoked.

A few examples are
94 niners
84 niners
89 niners
92 cowboys
98 broncos
85 bears
91 redskins
86 giants
03 pats

Oh yeah and hell yeah the Pats arent the best team ever. They arent in the top 25 now. They needed to win the sb to be conisdered among the elite but fell one game short....the most important game.

Originally posted by Smasandian
They're not best team ever.

Not at all.

You dont lose the biggest game in the season and still be called the best team, even during the regular season.

The other 15-1 Superbowl teams were more impressive. Like the 49ers team, Steelers and the Bears Superbowl championship team. The Patriots lost one game to a better team on a single sunday, and so did they, only they didn't slow down in the second half of the season, barely skim their way through the playoffs and drop the most important game of the season. Comparatively, the Bears outscored their opponents 91 to 10, they blanked both teams on the way to the big game, and had one of the most impressive superbowl outings ever, offensively, and certainly defensively.

Are the Patriots an awesome explosive team? yes.

Are they the best ever? no.

'99 Rams...Too fast

Originally posted by guy222
'99 Rams...Too fast I have to disagree guy. This team wasnt imo even in the same league as some of these great teams.


They would fall and they are a dome team that couldnt really play in horrible conditions. They were good but any great defense woul dput the clamp on this team.

I think the Rams of 2000 would have ripped out Kurt Warners heart on the field and the had no offense. 94 niners imo had a better offense and had Primetime back there to keep an eye on Isaac while the rest of the secondary could keep them in check.

'99 Rams had the MVP of both the regular season and Super Bowl---Kurt Warner

Kurt and crew easily defeated the Ravens when Ray Lewis was at his best

Dubbed one of the fastest teams ever. Pats couldn't even stop Eli Mannin. Warner, Faulk, Holt and Bruce and Lovie's cover 2 defense, my '99 Rams beat the overrated Pats

Originally posted by guy222
'99 Rams had the MVP of both the regular season and Super Bowl---Kurt Warner

Kurt and crew easily defeated the Ravens when Ray Lewis was at his best

Dubbed one of the fastest teams ever. Pats couldn't even stop Eli Mannin. Warner, Faulk, Holt and Bruce and Lovie's cover 2 defense, my '99 Rams beat the overrated Pats But the Rams only scored 11 to beat the Bucs that year in the championship. 11-6, I believe that final was. They won the superbowl by a yard. This offense could beat stopped as well and they werent dominant at all postseason. Guy their schedule was cake. They were 13-3 and had an easy ass schedule. The Pats offense was better than the Rams imo.

For the Rams to win all the conditions would have to be right. Lets face it the Rams lost when they faced them in 01. They got shut down the whole game. Granted that teams defense wasnt as strong as it was in 99 but the offense wasnt much different.