BSR

That 2004 defense wasn't as good as you are making them out to be. They weren't like that 2003 team. They did a great job against Indy that year in the playoffs, but remember that had just as much to do with the weather and the ability of the running game to chew clock. Even if you look at that Miami game in 2004, sure Brady through the pick but it was the defense that let up the winning score.

Again, its not just about the stats. Do a player by player comparison of the defensive starters and I think you have a hard time saying one is that much better then the other either way:

2004 Seymour, Wilfork, Green, Vrable, Willie, Bruschi, Phifer, Gay, Samuels, Harrison and Wilson

vs

2007 Seymour, Wilfork, Warran, Vrable, Thomas, Bruschi, Seau, Hobbs, Samuels, Harrison and Sanders

Lifer

You dont just go by that. The 2004 team was younger and it played better, especially when it mattered. Watch the last 8 games of each season and just use your eyes. Which team looked more dominant?

Hate to say it, but they were a much crisper run team with Weis and Crennel.
And Seymour, Bruschi, and Harrison were better in 2004.

BSR

The Chargers didn't score a TD the entire game. The offense held the ball for the last 9 minutes of the game running it down the throats of a very good San Diego front seven. In the previous game against the Jaguars, Brady and the offense were almost FLAWLESS. They were awesome in the playoffs. Did the last minute of the superbowl wipe away everyones memory of what happened that year?

You do realized they averaged 30 points a game the last 6 games of the season, right?

Here is the breakdown:
PHI: 31
BAL: 27
PIT: 34
NYJ: 20
MIA: 28
NYG: 38

So beacuse they were no longer scoring 40+ points a game against some of the best defenses in the league they were somehow not that great? Keep in mind that 2004 team only averaged 27.3 pts a game. So even the 2007 "slowed down" offense was better then the 2004 offense, which was still the strength of that team.

That's just insane. If Asante holds onto that ball then the there is no question of which team was the better team. That shouldn't change simply because of that one play. That 2004 team was a great team. No question. The 2007 team was better.

Lets not forget intangibles, the 2004 always played above itself, and when it mattered most, when the most people were watching. Compare the 2004 playoffs to the 2007 playoffs. Its not close.[/QUOTE]

Lifer

[/QUOTE]

You are saying the 2007 playoffs compare to the 2004 playoffs? Now thats insane.

The 2004 team played the best offense in football and held it to 3 points. Do you compare last years Jaguars to the 2004 Colts?

The 2004 played the best defense in football and scored 41 points. Do you compare last years Chargers to the 15-1 2004 Steelers??

The Patriots, for as great as you say they played against the Chargers, never put that team, which was playing without LT and with a banged up Rivers, away until that final drive.

And lets stop with the "just one drop by Samuel". Are you telling me the Patriots, other than that, played a good game against the Giants?

ok, people.
2004 - wins over Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia
2007 - wins over Jacksonville, San Diego, loss to Giants.

Who were the tougher opponents? Which Patriot team played better?

BSR

Bruschi and Harrison were no doubt better in 04.

Seymour was hurt throughout the second half of 04 and missed many of the games in the playoffs. I don't know how he could be considered better.

Sameul, Wilfork, Warren were all better in 07.

As for watching the last 8 games of each season, I think you should realize there were much higher expectations for the 07 team then the 04. If the 07 team didn't blow out a team then it was a disappointment. In 04 it was all about winning.

Rob0729

First, Green was not a starter in 2004. He was a situational rusher. Ty Warren started all of 2004.

Second, Ty Law started the first eight games for the Pats.

Third, Wilson was spectacular in 2004. He didn't fall apart until after 2005. He also started the first quarter of the season last year while Harrison was suspended.

Fourth, Seymour missed the first six games last year due to complications from surgery. He never really got his grove going until the post season.

Fifth, Colvin started the first 11 games and Seau and Bruschi rotated the position. AD played out of position inside because of this.

Sixth, the 3 man rotation of Vrabel, McGinest, and Colvin was probably greater OLBs than the Pats ever had under Belichick and the overall LB corp in 2004 was better than anything since. Phifer was a great ILB for the Pats' defense although he did show a little sign of age in 2004.

Seven, Harrison and Bruschi pre-2005 were MVPs in this defense. Bruschi was the heart and sole and was a spark plug. Harrison was as good a safety as their was in the league. In 2007, they were both shells of their former selves. Harrison missed the first four games as I stated and was good, but not great. Bruschi was a liability in spaces last year although good vs. the run.

Rob0729

Are you saying that Seymour was better last year while he was on PUP for the first six games? Yes, Seymour missed a handful of games at the end of the 2004 season due to a cheapshot by Mawae, but he was playing at a Pro Bowl level until then.

Lifer

So you are saying they were under more pressure? The 2004 team were the defending World Champions. They were getting teams best each week just as much. And I said this last year and got blasted for it, if last years team suffered because of the pressure, then thats an intangible you have to look at. You cant have it both ways, if they didnt play as well because of the pressure, then they didnt play as well, thus proving my point. They werent as good at the end of the season as the 2004 team was.

Also, if they won as they did without Seymour, doesnt that tell you something? How far would the 2007 team have gotten without Seymour?

Im tired of Samuel getting all the blame for the Super Bowl. From the beginning of that game I got a bad feeling about how they were playing. There was no excuse for how the OL got manhandled.

Either they werent as good as the Giants, which as this season progresses, looks like that may have been the case, and that proves the case because there is no way the 2007 Giants were as good as the 2004 Patriots..

OR
They were better than the Giants and werent emotionally tough enough to handle the "pressure", which again proves the case for the 2004 team, as the 2004 team thrived on pressure and challenges. One more time i point to the playoff game against the Colts. Watch the tape of that game. That Patriot team would do the same thing to last years Patriots, maybe not as one-sided, but Dillon was a monster, the OL was awesome, Brady totally on target, the defense just hitting on all cylanders. You can MAYBE convince me on the right day that the 2007 team could have been as good, but NO WAY was the 2007 team better. If they were they would have gotten the ring. And its not "one play".

BSR

You are saying the 2007 playoffs compare to the 2004 playoffs? Now thats insane.

The 2004 team played the best offense in football and held it to 3 points. Do you compare last years Jaguars to the 2004 Colts?

The 2004 played the best defense in football and scored 41 points. Do you compare last years Chargers to the 15-1 2004 Steelers??[/quote]

The 2007 team could only play who was on their schedule. They won both games by two scores. They did both in dominating fashion.

They won by two scores and held onto the ball for the last 9 minutes of the game, if that isn't "putting it away" then I don't know what is.

Does it matter? We are still talking about one play beign the difference between 2007 being arguably the greatest team of all time to some incomplete second half fading team. If Samuel makes that catch and they kneel the rest of the way would you still be arguing this?

Lifer

they did not "dominate" the Chargers. And no, if the Patriots of last year were "finishers" and found a way to win, we probably wouldnt be talking about it.

But if Brady took a knee in SB 36 and the Patriots lost to the Rams in OT do you think we would look at 2001 the same way? Would the Rams be remembered differently?

If the Raiders hadnt laid down like dogs in the Snow Game and found a way to win do you think the 2001 Raiders would be looked at differently?

If Norwood makes the kick are the 1990 Giants looked at the same?

If Brady doesnt drive the team down in SB 38 and the Panthers win, are the Panthers, and the 2003 Patriots, looked at the same?

I hate to tell you, but it does matter that the Patriots blew the Super Bowl. Just as it matters the 1968 Colts blew the Super Bowl.

Champions find a way to win. There were many opportunities for the Patriots to win that Super Bowl last year. They didnt do it. That does change things and how they are remembered.