If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 team?

[cstjohn17]

Hmm. things we think about...

I would say No, the 2007 team was the deepest and most talented since free agency started. But the 2009 team would be better than the 2008 team which went 11-5 without the league MVP at QB.

As BB said, is it my paper versus your paper? but still on paper it would look good.

 

[eom]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

is this question contingent on foote and taylor signing?

 

[Sicilian]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

I think offensively we're more balanced than 2007 already. We're not going to score as many points (it was a record or near record for a reason), but we'll be better suited to a lot of different situations, assuming Brady's health.

Defensively, I think we're potentially better and potentially worse. It all depends on health and maturation of youth. I think signing Taylor AND Foote would provide much need depth and versatility, and would put us over the top of the 2007 team.

Not saying we'd go 19-0, cuz anything can happen, but I'd feel better about the team going in then I did that year for sure.

 

[patsfan-1982]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

Larry Foote is kinda small as far as patriot LB go and i dont think hes any better then any one all redy on the team and we dont even know if jason taylor has any thing in the tank he may just be a old LB who will only give 5 or 6 sacks and if thats so hes no better then mike vrabel who we give a way i say no thay would not be better

 

[supafly]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

Larry Foote is kinda small as far as patriot LB go and i dont think hes any better then any one all redy on the team and we dont even know if jason taylor has any thing in the tank he may just be a old LB who will only give 5 or 6 sacks and if thats so hes no better then mike vrabel who we give a way i say no thay would not be better

I agree with your assessment of the defense we have already, however one of these guys certainly couldn't hurt our chances any.

And if Taylor got 6 sacks that'd be pretty darn good, considering Seymour led the team with 8.

 

[stinkypete]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

Foote wants to play for Detroit. God knows why.

The 2009 team won't be better than the 2007 team, but I think it is potentially a more well balanced team. The 2009 squad should have more pass/run balance, more short/long balance. I think the defense will be deeper and better equipped to handle injuries.

On both sides of the ball I see less explosive firepower, fewer points, fewer defensive turnovers and sacks, then the 2007 team. I think this team is better equipped to handle the haul of the season, and will look much more comfortable in a tight January game then the 2007 team did.

 

[maverick4]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

Hmm. things we think about...

I would say No, the 2007 team was the deepest and most talented since free agency started. But the 2009 team would be better than the 2008 team which went 11-5 without the league MVP at QB.

As BB said, is it my paper versus your paper? but still on paper it would look good.

The 2008 team had devastating season-ending injuries to the defense, nobody talks about this.

The 2009 edition is going to be the best Pats team. We won't go 16-0 in the regular season, but we have a better shot of winning it all.

 

[Tunescribe]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

The 2009 edition is going to be the best Pats team. We won't go 16-0 in the regular season ...

Why not? I mean, it's quite a feat, but if this team is indeed better than the 2007 team, who's on the schedule you're worried about?

 

[maverick4]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

We went 16-0 from talent, but also from Belichick adapting the Meyer spread offense, which many teams were unprepared for that year. Teams adapted in the playoffs and we had no answer at the end.

I see the 09 team as more similar to the 2004 team, which didn't win every single game but was a better team. Yes, I think the 2004 team is better than the 2007 team.

 

[supafly]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

The 2008 team had devastating season-ending injuries to the defense, nobody talks about this.

The 2009 edition is going to be the best Pats team. We won't go 16-0 in the regular season, but we have a better shot of winning it all.

Absolutely true, AND we somehow still finished 10th overall. We've patched up plenty of holes, and added plenty of depth--I see no possible way we couldn't improve over last yr.

The most important thing, IMO--is that we have to continue our good penalty ratio from last yr, and play smart. Continue to keep penalties and turnovers down, and we'll contend even if my grandma plays OLB.

These are the top 3 things for us to compete, regardless of who we add--don't add, etc :

1. Protect Brady, possibly have a good back up plan if needed. I wouldn't object to signing a vet somewhere down the line, mostly because we now lack a viable body with much experience. At least Cassel had 4 yrs in learning the playbook. Chances are, we probably won't end up signing a vet, but I personally would be a lot happier. At the very least, we need to protect our QB to the absolute max.

2. Continue to keep the penalties down. This couldn't be any more key, other than the Brady factor, IMO.

3. Improve even more on our turnover ratio, or at the very least--continue to keep ours down. This shouldn't be too hard, with TB coming back, etc. Cassel did a pretty darn good job of this, as did the RB's.

As long as we do these 3 things, and play like a team, we'll be just fine.

 

[supafly]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

Why not? I mean, it's quite a feat, but if this team is indeed better than the 2007 team, who's on the schedule you're worried about?

With all respect, Tunescribe, we have a decently hard schedule. 3rd hardest in the league. If we end up going 4-2 in the division, which could always certainly be a possibility, we'd have to win 8 out of these 10 games, just to be 12-4 :

1.Tennessee
2.Denver
3.Indianapolis
4.Baltimore
5.Tampa Bay
6.Improved Houston team, and they're tough at home
7.New Orleans
8.Carolina
9.Jacksonville
10.Atlanta

As optimistic as I am, and even with all of the improvements we've made, I wouldn't be quite ready to talk about 16-0 just yet.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

Why not? I mean, it's quite a feat, but if this team is indeed better than the 2007 team, who's on the schedule you're worried about?

I think we have the second or third toughest schedule. Would be tough to win all 19

 

[farn]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

In the end, I don't care about comparaing to the 07 team, because the 03 & 04 defenses were stronger and ulitmately made plays in key spots.

Give me those types of "D" and I'll be more than happy. 2007 : lotsa fun to watch... I understand the "one play away" theory... but we didn't need "one more play" in 03 & 04, we'd get them consistently.

 

[eom]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

We went 16-0 from talent, but also from Belichick adapting the Meyer spread offense, which many teams were unprepared for that year. Teams adapted in the playoffs and we had no answer at the end.

that is really a crock.

I see too many people bs'ing themselves on this kind of thing, and I have no idea why.
what you're saying is that it took a team all the way through the season, through the playoffs, and into the superbowl to figure out how to run over our offensive line?
dude, that is flat out stupid.

you might not remember, but the jags and san diego were both good teams billed as patsbusters in the playoffs, and they got stomped.
exactly how much film does a team need on the pats to figure out what's coming?

on another note, I don't worry about any particular week on the schedule, but you never know what will happen w/injuries, and I wonder how many people thought baltimore would beat that '07 pats team.
all that matters is that they make the playoffs, and after that keep winning.

 

[DW Toys]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

Foote wants to play for Detroit. God knows why.

The 2009 team won't be better than the 2007 team, but I think it is potentially a more well balanced team. The 2009 squad should have more pass/run balance, more short/long balance. I think the defense will be deeper and better equipped to handle injuries.

On both sides of the ball I see less explosive firepower, fewer points, fewer defensive turnovers and sacks, then the 2007 team. I think this team is better equipped to handle the haul of the season, and will look much more comfortable in a tight January game then the 2007 team did.

He is from Detroit.
DW Toys

 

[Synovia]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

1.Tennessee
2.Denver
3.Indianapolis
4.Baltimore
5.Tampa Bay
6.Improved Houston team, and they're tough at home
7.New Orleans
8.Carolina
9.Jacksonville
10.Atlanta.

While their are some tough teams on there, there are also some terrible teams.

Denver and Jacksonville are terrible. Houston, New Orleans, Tampa, and Atlanta are decent teams. Indy, Baltimore, and Carolina are good. I see a serious decline from Tenessee this year without Haynesworth. Their defense has gone from "All-world" to "mediocre" every time he gets hurt. 8-2 isn't out of the question, tough though.


4-2 in the division though, I see as worst case. 4-2 is beating buffalo twice, and splitting with Miami and NYJ. I think the jets are terrible this year, and miami isn't as good as last year, and I see the pats going 5-1, or even 6-0 in the division as likely.

 

[supafly]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

While their are some tough teams on there, there are also some terrible teams.

Denver and Jacksonville are terrible. Houston, New Orleans, Tampa, and Atlanta are decent teams. Indy, Baltimore, and Carolina are good. I see a serious decline from Tenessee this year without Haynesworth. Their defense has gone from "All-world" to "mediocre" every time he gets hurt. 8-2 isn't out of the question, tough though.


4-2 in the division though, I see as worst case. 4-2 is beating buffalo twice, and splitting with Miami and NYJ. I think the jets are terrible this year, and miami isn't as good as last year, and I see the pats going 5-1, or even 6-0 in the division as likely.

Yeah, I hope they do better in the division than 4-2 also, but I'm not sure about the Jets being 'terrible.' Ryan is a better coach, they've upgraded their defense, and may end up being alright. Buffalo isn't a lock to be swept either, their bound to break the streak at some point, and have somewhat of a formidable offense now. Miami usually gives Brady some problems as is, and are still the defending division champs. It could be argued that all 3 divisional foes have improved, or at the very least, stayed the same at worst. I haven't seen any of the other 3 decline so far, through FA or the draft.

Divisional games can be tough for even the most elite teams, and I'm hoping there's not another logjam in the AFC East this year--that's all I'm saying. Out of the 6 games against these teams, I assumed winning 4 was still pretty good, but maybe we can win 5.

I'm not sure about your assessment of Denver being 'terrible' either, but everyone has their own opinion. Here's hoping we pound Denver again this yr. I'd be thrilled at 12-4 or 13-3, I just want the usual December cohesiveness coming down the stretch, and somewhat of a pass on the nasty injury plague.

 

[carolinatony]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

"Foote wants to play for Detroit. God knows why."


I work with a guy who moved here from Detroit and he told me today; Everyone up there says its a given he is going there.
Foote came from Detriot so he must be dumb is he wants to go back.

 

[Shockt327]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

that is really a crock.

No it really isn't.

I see too many people bs'ing themselves on this kind of thing, and I have no idea why.
what you're saying is that it took a team all the way through the season, through the playoffs, and into the superbowl to figure out how to run over our offensive line?
dude, that is flat out stupid.

This is particularly bad, because as a fan of Belichick coached team you should already have an appreciation for how vital game planning really is.

It wasn't as if the the line simply got run over, there's more to it than that. Before, teams were playing conservative in an attempt to merely limit the deep passes. Didn't work. Then teams were more successful at hindering the Patriots offense by using delay blitzes and zone blitzes. I believe the Eagles were the first team to try it extensively. The Ravens also had success with overloads. San Diego also used the zone blitz successfully. When Steve Spagnuolo was putting together his game plan for the Superbowl he followed what other teams did. In those games, he found a flaw in the Patriots ability to read oncoming rushers. I believe he was also particularly good at figuring out what defensive looks would result in getting Brady to think "blitz," audibleizing to a screen, and then dropping into the flat to defend it.

you might not remember, but the jags and san diego were both good teams billed as patsbusters in the playoffs, and they got stomped.

The Jags were never viewed as being a threat on D. Their defense has always been known for being unimaginative and conservative. On the other hand, San Diego was aggressive as hell and picked off Brady 3 times. If Rivers wasn't playing with a torn ACL, and LT wasn't sitting on the bench, that game might have been different. Either way, the offense wasn't great.

exactly how much film does a team need on the pats to figure out what's coming?

With hindsight being 20-20, if you look at the data, it's pretty clear that teams were catching up to what the Patriots were doing. So no, the Giants weren't the only team to do well. Lesser teams were having more success as the season went on.

I think this may have originally been posted on this site, but I forget who deserves the credit. Even though it's margin of victory - not points - the chart clearly shows that we didn't get beat by one lucky team. And we didn't lose cause our line had a bad day (sort of). We lost cause our offense was slowly but surely coming back down to earth; which is what happens when teams see more of you.

 

[Shockt327]

Re: If Larry Foote & Jason Taylor are signed, is this 2009 team as good as the 2007 t

Also, *on paper* this team can be better than the 07 team...if we get an OLB. That dosen't mean we'll even sniff 16-0, though. That was lightning in a bottle.