Are these innocent, pensive looks or are Tom Brady and Bill Belichick practicing squinting to see the other teams' signals? You decide. :: Getty Images

As you'd expect, SI.com's Don Banks pretty much nailed it in his 2000s NFL Team of the Decade rankings, but I have a few questions …  

1. Does anyone else feel uneasy about calling the Patriots the team of the decade even though they were caught illegally taping opponents' signals despite explicit warnings from the NFL? Does this call for an asterisk?

2. Of the metrics used to determine this list, number of winning seasons could be the most deceiving because it rewards mediocrity. Isn't one Super Bowl trip and nine losing seasons better than 10 years hovering around 8-8?

The Broncos had only one losing season this decade, but were they ever a threat to win it all? The 2000-2005 Dolphins always piled up wins in September and October, but disappeared late in the season.

3.  The Giants' and Ravens' Super Bowl wins should catapult them over the Eagles. What did Philly really accomplish if they didn't get a ring?

4. Would the Steelers have won two Super Bowls this decade if Tom Brady hadn’t gotten injured last season? Then again, things would be a lot different without the tuck rule and David Tyree’s helmet as well.

5. Would anyone have a problem putting the Bengals at No. 32 because of their pathetic off-field legacy from this decade?

What do you think of Banks' rankings?