Rank All Superbowl Teams of 2000s #1-11

[GBPack2010]

2000 Ravens(16-4)
2001 Patriots(14-5)
2002 Bucs(15-4)
2003 Patriots(17-2)
2004 Patriots(17-2)
2005 Steelers(15-5)
2006 Colts(16-4)
2007 Giants(14-6)
2008 Steelers(15-4)
2009 Saints(16-3)
2010 Packers(14-6)

 

[VersusTheMoose]

2004 Patriots(17-2)
2006 Colts(16-4)
2003 Patriots(17-2)
2010 Packers(14-6)
2000 Ravens(16-4) <--Hardest to rank, such a dominate D but when you look at who was taking the snaps..
2009 Saints(16-3)
2007 Giants(14-6)
2002 Bucs(15-4)
2008 Steelers(15-4)
2001 Patriots(14-5)
2005 Steelers(15-5)

 

[ivo610]

1. 2004 Patriots
2. 2001 Rams
3. 2000 Ravens
4. 2010 Packers
5. 2005 Steelers
6. 2002 Bucs
7. 2009 Saints
8. 2003 Patriots
9. 2006 Colts
10. 2001 Patriots
11. 2007 Giants

 

[PackersRS]

2010 Packers

The rest I really don't care.

In all honesty, I don't know how to rank them. Do I rank by team, or by season? The 2010 Packers are the best team, specially if you consider the injuried players. Best combination of D and O. All the rest of them had a clear dominant side of the field, even the 2004 Patriots who was the most balanced of the bunch. Actually, all the winning Patriots strike me more as teams that knew how to win than teams that were dominant. It reflects in their SBs, that were won by a FG.

But if you're talking about most dominant season, the Packers should be last, or close to last with the 2007 Giants, 2005 Steelers and 2001 Patriots contending.

The Bucs and Ravens have clearly the best defenses of the bunch but clearly the worst offenses. The opposite for the Colts and Saints, though both defenses rose up in the playoffs.

I think in this cap era, it's close to impossible to assemble a trully dominant team. All of them had clear areas of weakness, that if faced against a team that matched up well against them, would have an incredibly hard time to win.

 

[greenandgold]

2000 Ravens(16-4) <--Hardest to rank, such a dominate D but when you look at who was taking the snaps..

It doesn't matter since the guy taking the snaps has just as many rings as Favre and Rodgers............though we can sure hope Rodgers gets a few more!

 

[Bensalama21]

1. 2010 Packers
i'll get back to you when I care about any other team in the NFL besides the Packers. The 2009 Packers were better than the 2009 Saints, the 2008 Packers were better than the 2008 Steelers, the 2007 Packers were better than the 2007 Giants, the 2006 Packers were better than the 2006 Colts, the 2005 Packers were better than the 2005 Steelers, the 2004 Packers were better than the 2004 Patriots, the 2003 Packers were better than the 2003 Patriots, the 2002 Packers were better than the 2002 Bucs, the 2001 Packers were better than the 2001 Patriots, and the 2000 Packers were better than the 2000 Ravens. It's not my opinion. It's the truth.

 

[VersusTheMoose]

It doesn't matter since the guy taking the snaps has just as many rings as Favre and Rodgers............though we can sure hope Rodgers gets a few more!

It doesn't matter? If you only count rings than that is your prerogative. I don't.

 

[PackersRS]

It doesn't matter since the guy taking the snaps has just as many rings as Favre and Rodgers............though we can sure hope Rodgers gets a few more!

It does matter. That D was so good that they won it even with Dilfer at the helm throwing pick 6 in the SB.

 

[AllouezPackerFan]

2010 Packers

The rest I really don't care.

In all honesty, I don't know how to rank them. Do I rank by team, or by season? The 2010 Packers are the best team, specially if you consider the injuried players. Best combination of D and O. All the rest of them had a clear dominant side of the field, even the 2004 Patriots who was the most balanced of the bunch. Actually, all the winning Patriots strike me more as teams that knew how to win than teams that were dominant. It reflects in their SBs, that were won by a FG.

But if you're talking about most dominant season, the Packers should be last, or close to last with the 2007 Giants, 2005 Steelers and 2001 Patriots contending.

The Bucs and Ravens have clearly the best defenses of the bunch but clearly the worst offenses. The opposite for the Colts and Saints, though both defenses rose up in the playoffs.

I think in this cap era, it's close to impossible to assemble a trully dominant team. All of them had clear areas of weakness, that if faced against a team that matched up well against them, would have an incredibly hard time to win.

Very well said. Very hard to rank them. The 2007 Patriots may have been the best team of the decade and they didn't win the Super Bowl. Almost impossible to rank these teams IMO.

 

[PackersRS]

Very well said. Very hard to rank them. The 2007 Patriots may have been the best team of the decade and they didn't win the Super Bowl. Almost impossible to rank these teams IMO.

If the 2007 team wins it, it would be #1 BY FAR. The best O of all time and a top 5 D to go with it, and a dominant performance year round, including playoffs (Brady went 20 throws without the ball hitting the ground!).

But they lost the only game they couldn't... I still, to this date, don't know how they lost that game. I know the Giants' DL had the most dominant performance, but still, the Giants' secondary wasn't great, they could've exploited it.

 

[ivo610]

If the 2007 team wins it, it would be #1 BY FAR. The best O of all time and a top 5 D to go with it, and a dominant performance year round, including playoffs (Brady went 20 throws without the ball hitting the ground!).

But they lost the only game they couldn't... I still, to this date, don't know how they lost that game. I know the Giants' DL had the most dominant performance, but still, the Giants' secondary wasn't great, they could've exploited it.

They were out coached. They were out hustled.

2007 Giants were the worst team stats wise I believe to win the SB. while the packers were a wild card team too we were a dominate team statistically. It showed we belonged in the SB.

 

[PackersRS]

They were out coached. They were out hustled.

2007 Giants were the worst team stats wise I believe to win the SB. while the packers were a wild card team too we were a dominate team statistically. It showed we belonged in the SB.

Very true. My point was, they hadn't in the other 18 games, they were always one step ahead coaching, and, specially on defense, were never outhustled. Remember them playing against the Steelers? They were a very physical team that day.

So why, just in the SB, they went flat? Maybe they got cocky, I don't know...

 

[ivo610]

Very true. My point was, they hadn't in the other 18 games, they were always one step ahead coaching, and, specially on defense, were never outhustled. Remember them playing against the Steelers? They were a very physical team that day.

So why, just in the SB, they went flat? Maybe they got cocky, I don't know...

This never gets old. Also it might answer your question.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqErnhihQFQ&feature=related]‪Tom Brady response to Plax prediction of Giants winning‬&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ivo610]

also fair to point out that the Giants were their mismatch. It wasnt a fluke that the Giants gave them their best game prior to the playoffs

 

[AllouezPackerFan]

also fair to point out that the Giants were their mismatch. It wasnt a fluke that the Giants gave them their best game prior to the playoffs

I actually predicted the Giants would win the Super Bowl after how they played the Patriots right before the playoffs last year. No one will believe me, but I did. Giants were a definite mismatch for them.