ESPN: Top-25 Teams of the Past 25 Years
 

Football purgatory thread. Bill Barnwell wrote the article. Interesting read if you're bored. Not that I agree with everything, but at least it's a guy that doesn't default to the Super Bowl winner as the best team of a season (2004 Patriots and 2004 Steelers both made the list, for example).

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...agles-seahawks

Colts get the #12 spot with the 2007 team, and Honorable Mention with the 2006 team, and are referenced many times in other teams' entries. That includes 2009 Saints which mentions that the 2009 Colts narrowly missed the list.

2005 Colts are not mentioned, which is silly. I think that team edges out the 2007 team, but they were the best two. After that, 2006 gets the bronze. 2004 vs. 2009 is interesting and I could lean either way.

Without analyzing the entire list, I think the Colts should've made top-10 at least because '05, '06, and '07 were better than the 2002 Bucs and the 2010 Packers.

I read the article and believe, like you, that the 2005 Colts were superior to the 2007 team.

Had the Colts gotten past the Steelers they would have easily won the Super Bowl that season. But...But...But...Nick Harper, Mike Doss and Vandy ruined that dream.

Yes, the O-Line had protection problems, and we didn't run Edge enough. I'm not convinced that's the reason we lost that game though.

And what were they, like three weeks removed from Dungy's tragedy? Obviously that's beyond football-important. Can't help but wonder about the effect.

Also, bonus points to this guy for pointing out that the '06 Ravens defense was better than the '00 Ravens and '02 Bucs. That defense was ridiculous.

I just scanned through the article to see who he had listed. Fully agree that the '05 Colts are the best Colts team from the past 25 years and the best Indy Colts team, and it's ridiculous that they weren't on his list.

The '07 team was really good early in the season, but by the time the playoffs rolled around we had so many injuries that we were a complete shell compared to earlier on.

You guys are forgetting the '03 team, which was 12-4 and went to the AFCC game. 2 of those losses were to the 2 teams that were in the SB: Carolina in OT and the Willie McGinest fake injury game vs. the Cheats. And unlike some other years we weren't embarrassed in our playoff loss despite the refs allowing the Cheats DBs to hold every single play for the entire game.

Anyway, for me it's '05 1st, '06 2nd by default (since they're the only Colts team that actually got the job done), then pretty much a toss up between '03, '04, '07, and '09.

Yeah, that whole run of '03 through '09 were top teams in each of their respective seasons.

'03 was a fun playoff run, too. Second only to '06. They just had the baby versions on Wayne, Freeney, Mathis, Clark, etc... and Sanders wasn't around yet.

Later teams had stronger versions of those players, along with other improved units... so if I stacked them side-to-side, they're better versions of '03.

Still a great team and some of my favorite moments ever (Saints on SNF, Bucs comeback, Titans in wk 14), don't get me wrong.

Maybe on paper the later teams were better, but I still think you're shortchanging the '03 team by not including them in the convo. Also they are one of only 3 teams from the Manning years that didn't completely shit the bed in the playoffs, so that should count for something.

I might be, but that's not my intent. I love that team and, again, it's part of that crazy 7-year stretch.

But also, I think on-paper is kind of the point. If we were looking at "best seasons", I could put them over '07. But that's why the Giants aren't listed in the article and why the '07 Patriots are #1 and not like #5.

Also, more of a separate point because you mentioned shitting the bed in the playoffs... Does it bug anyone else that a bye-week doesn't count as a playoff win? And missing the playoffs doesn't count as a playoff loss.

That's how you end up with Eli Manning having an 8-3 playoff record.

There's no could about it. The '03 team without a doubt had a better season that '07.

After letting it stew for a couple of days I'm not really sure why the '07 would get that much love. They were great the first ~1/2 of the season, but once the injuries set in they were an average team at best w/ a super weak schedule. Losing at home in the playoffs to a Chargers team w/ Billy Volek at QB and w/out LT really should exclude them from any sort of best of list.

Not really. Playoff record shows who played well when the stakes were the highest (or at least who was illegally videotaping their opponents).


Not sure why you're hating on Eli. Without him the Cheats would probably have won 8* Superbowls.

I'll always thank him before bed for that.

He's just the poster boy for the argument. Easiest to point out, plus I still have PTSD from people arguing that he was better than Peyton because of this.

Not that it's not dumb to judge QBs so heavily on team accomplishments in the most team-oriented sport... But if we're going to do that...

Eli's 8-4 record looks great because he missed the playoffs 10 out 16 years. 8-14 record is more accurate to what he was.

Gotcha. Yeah, anyone who thinks Eli had a better career than Peyton has no idea what they're talking about.

I do think it's fair to say that Eli (or at least his teams) performed much better in the playoffs than Peyton did. But then it's also fair to point out that Peyton led his teams to the playoffs 15/17 vs. 6/16 for Eli. And of course Peyton's career stats blow Eli's away.