Who was the best team in the NFL last year?

[Razor]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Ness

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]

Originally Posted by NY+Giants=NYG

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]

Originally Posted by NY+Giants=NYG

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]

Originally Posted by Ness

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]

Originally Posted by NY+Giants=NYG

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]

Originally Posted by Ness

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Razor

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??
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]

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

You mean the same Steelers who couldn't handle the arm talent of Tim Tebow??
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]

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]

Originally Posted by Razor

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]

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]

Originally Posted by scottyboy

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]

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]

Originally Posted by scottyboy

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]

Originally Posted by Ness

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]

Originally Posted by scottyboy

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]

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]

Originally Posted by TACKLE

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]

Originally Posted by scottyboy

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]

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]

Originally Posted by scottyboy

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]

Ness's football opinions remind me Brodeur's life opinions.