Ranking the most talented Patriots teams in NFL history

[Deus Irae]

Yes and they lost to an inferior opponent that utilized a very similar style of play that the 2003 & 2004 teams perfected. If they could be shut down and beaten up by that Giants team, why would you doubt the same could happen against our 2003-2004 teams?

That type of style won't shatter any records b/c it shortens games but it also physically dominates opposing defenses so that by the time the 4th quarter rolls around the opposing defense is worn down and not capable of putting up much of a fight.

No one is saying that the 2007 team wasn't great. They were. Their accomplishments speak for themselves. But the same should be understood regarding 2003-2004. Those teams went 34-4 over two years which is the best two season stretch in NFL history.

The loss of 1 game has poisoned the minds of even many of the most rational people here. The 2007 team the best team of the Belichick era, and in Patriots history

2003/4/7
QB: Brady/Brady/Brady - Nobody is going to say 2007 Brady isn't best, right?

RB: Smith/Dillon/Tandem - Ranking 04,07,03

3rd down back: Faulk 2007 in a landslide

O-line: Again, 2007 in a landslide Light had his best year, Neal was dominant against the run, Mankins was in place. Koppen had his best year and Kazcur was as good as any other RT

TE: Tough call. Personally, I see a 2004/2007 wash and 2003 a bit better than both

WR #1: 2007 (Moss)
WR #2: 2007 (Welker)
WR #3: 2007 (Gaffney)

So, on the offensive side of the ball, the Patriots were better in 2007 than either 2003 or 2004 at:

QB
3rd down RB
LT
LG
C
RG
RT
WR1
WR2
WR3

and there was probably not a single position on offense in 2007 that was weaker than that same position in both 2003 and 2004. I could probably add the FB to the argument, but I'm not sure how to compare them, since the roles changed a great deal.

Defensively:

Seymour
Warren
Wilfork

I think it's fair to say that Wilfork was better in 07 than 04, but not as good as Washington either time. Warren was he best partner for Seymour and Seymour was probably at his lowest in 2007.

That makes the D-line a push, at worst

Vrabel was at his best in 2007, and no OLB had a better season in either 03 or 04.

Samuel was playing at his highest level
Hobbs was playing at least as well as the #2 CBs for either '03 or '04

So, I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that being not quite as good at the other spots somehow makes that 2007 team weaker than the others. And, frankly, neither was anyone else until the team lost the Super Bowl.

 

[PYPER]

Defensively:

Seymour
Warren
Wilfork

I think it's fair to say that Wilfork was better in 07 than 04, but not as good as Washington either time. Warren was he best partner for Seymour and Seymour was probably at his lowest in 2007.

That makes the D-line a push, at worst

How is that a push? In Washington you have the greatest NT to ever play the game and a healthy Seymour is one of, if not "the" most physically dominating defensive linemen in our era. The 2007 version of Seymour was a shadow of himself. He wasn't healthy.

Vrabel was at his best in 2007, and no OLB had a better season in either 03 or 04.

Interesting that you think Vrabel at 32 years of age and playing in his 11th season was better than he was at 28 and playing in his 7th season. I realize his numbers may have been better but this isn't baseball. You can't assesss football by analyzing box scores.

Are you seriously going to compare the LB and DB corps of 2007 with 2003? In 2003 those units were the strength of the team. The depth and talent were far superior. In 2007 those units were the chinks in our armor. Those were our weak spots.

Hobbs was playing at least as well as the #2 CBs for either '03 or '04

Seriously? Really? Did you follow the pats back in 2003 or just start in 2007? Tyrone Poole played at a Pro Bowl level in 2003. He had a heck of a year. Our nickelback was Samuel and he, even as a rookie, was better than Hobbs.

So, I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that being not quite as good at the other spots somehow makes that 2007 team weaker than the others. And, frankly, neither was anyone else until the team lost the Super Bowl.

We all knew that the defense was flawed. But the offense was so unbelievably good that it didn't matter. Until the most important game, when it obviously did. But even more important than that was the style used. And yes, there were many of us that were critical of the team becoming too dependent on the passing game. We argued that that style didn't fit with playing playoff football in the frigid weather of Foxboro. Fortunately, BB and company realized the same and ran the ball more in the playoffs than they had been doing in the regular season. The same can't be said about the Super Bowl.

 

[BradyFTW!]

How is that a push? In Washington you have the greatest NT to ever play the game and a healthy Seymour is one of, if not "the" most physically dominating defensive linemen in our era. The 2007 version of Seymour was a shadow of himself. He wasn't healthy.

Agreed; if I was ranking DLs, I'd rank them 03/04/07. Seymour's injury was more significant than the improvement that Wilfork showed from 04 to 07

Interesting that you think Vrabel at 32 years of age and playing in his 11th season was better than he was at 28 and playing in his 7th season. I realize his numbers may have been better but this isn't baseball. You can't assesss football by analyzing box scores.

Are you arguing that Vrabel played better in his 7th season? Based on what? I agree with Deus on this one.

Are you seriously going to compare the LB and DB corps of 2007 with 2003? In 2003 those units were the strength of the team. The depth and talent were far superior. In 2007 those units were the chinks in our armor. Those were our weak spots.

Depends on if we're talking about before or after the Thomas/Colvin injuries. People forget that Thomas hurt his knee pretty early in the season- I thought it was an ACL tear when it happened, but he ended up being okay. I do think that he was injured more severely than he ever let on though. If we're talking pre-injuries, IMO the 2007 LBs were indeed comparable to 2003. Not quite as good, but very close.

If you're accounting for injuries, it's probably 2003>2004>2007
If not, it's probably 2003>2007>2004

Seriously? Really? Did you follow the pats back in 2003 or just start in 2007? Tyrone Poole played at a Pro Bowl level in 2003. He had a heck of a year. Our nickelback was Samuel and he, even as a rookie, was better than Hobbs.

Secondary: once again, injuries are a huge factor here. I'd agree that the 2003 secondary was the best: Harrison's first year with the Pats, Poole and Law both bringing it... Wilson stepping up and playing out of his mind as a rookie... good times.

But 2004? Harrison and Law both went down, and we ended up starting an UDFA (Gay) and having Troy Brown play significant snaps at CB. In 2007, Hobbs was fine as the #2 guy, and Asante was awfully good as the #1. Harrison had a good year, although he obviously was no longer the player he was in '03. For secondary rankings, I'd go 03>07>04 again.


So the point is that you have to regard the 2003 and 2004 teams separately.


2003 vs. 2007: The 2003 defense was the best Patriots' D that I've ever seen by a significant margin. But on offense, what did they have? Branch, Givens and Brown at WR doesn't even hold a candle to the 2007 corps, the OL was better in 2007, Brady was better in 2007, the RBs were MUCH better in 2007... all in all, I'd say that the defense was significantly better in 03, but the offense was light-years better in '07.

2004 vs. 2007: The 2004 team had one thing that 2003 and 2007 didn't: Corey Dillon. And that's absolutely huge, it's almost impossible to overstate how much he meant to that team. As a result, I'm inclined to rank the 2004 offense as much, much better than 2003's. Still not nearly as good as 2007's, but it's a lot closer to being comparable. By 2004, though, the secondary was a mess, to the point that while the '04 D was better than '07's, it wasn't by nearly margin that it would have to be to compensate for the fact that the '07 team was significantly better at QB, WR1-3, and pretty much across the OL.

 

[maverick4]

Yes and they lost to an inferior opponent that utilized a very similar style of play that the 2003 & 2004 teams perfected. If they could be shut down and beaten up by that Giants team, why would you doubt the same could happen against our 2003-2004 teams?

That type of style won't shatter any records b/c it shortens games but it also physically dominates opposing defenses so that by the time the 4th quarter rolls around the opposing defense is worn down and not capable of putting up much of a fight.

No one is saying that the 2007 team wasn't great. They were. Their accomplishments speak for themselves. But the same should be understood regarding 2003-2004. Those teams went 34-4 over two years which is the best two season stretch in NFL history.

This post by pyper and his other one before it were great posts.

I agree that you can't penalize the 2003 and 2004 Pats for style of play. They were a punishing, physical team that were tough to run or pass against, and on offense were extremely efficient and clutch. The teams both those years were the ultimate grinders, who could beat any type of opponent through chameleon adaptation week to week. Their style of play didn't put up sexy offensive numbers. The 2007 team put up lots of sexy stats because of our spread receiver talent, but was a lot softer and less physical, and I believe the style of play contributed to the fact that we allowed a far inferior opponent to beat us for the ring, similar to how the 01Rams/03Colts/04Colts lost in playoffs to tougher, more physical teams.

 

[maverick4]

If you're accounting for injuries, it's probably 2003>2004>2007
If not, it's probably 2003>2007>2004

So now we're going to pre-injury teams since the 2007 teams had injuries to Adalius and to the RB's? Even accounting for injuries, the 2003 and 2004 teams are STILL better than the 2007 team.

The 2003 and 2004 squads suffered catastrophic and league-leading injury numbers, and still had the best two year winning stretch of anybody in NFL history and also won 2 rings, beating all the top contenders from their conference those years.

As for the position by position breakdown, Deus is giving great bias in his rankings.

2007 Watson isn't even close to 2003 or 2004 Graham/Fauria especially at blocking or end zone catching. Hobbs and both safeties in 2007 were nowhere near the level of Poole and Rodney/Eugene from 2003-2004. Wilfork is no Ted Washington, and we've had problems replacing our LB's ever since Phiper/McGinest/TedJohnson left and Bruschi had a stroke.

The funny thing is Deus keeps harping about 18-0 with 1 loss being better than two 14-2 teams with rings, and at the same time will keep saying Brady is better than Manning by arguing about rings and ignoring the total wins and passing stats that Manning has, which are substantial.

 

[PYPER]

One more thing about comparing the offenses of '03-'04 with 2007. While 2007 was clearly the more talented and explosive offense with Moss and Welker, don't forget how reliable Branch, Brown, and Givens were. Those players NEVER dropped the ball. Especially late in games. We tend to give all the credit to Brady in terms of being clutch, but that group of receivers was also VERY clutch. What they may have lacked in height or athleticism they made up for in hands. I just rewatched the 2003 Super Bowl and those guys made quite a few outstanding catches. I don't recall the 2007 receivers dropping the ball often but the same group had a ton of problems in 2008, especially Moss but Welker as well.

 

[Ring 6]

I will stand on my opinion that if you have a goal 'good' 'better' or 'best' is defined solely by achieving the goal.
"Better" by any other definition does not overcome acheiving the goal.
A team that does not win the SB cannot, by defintion, be better than a team that did. I think its very simple. The purpose of playing is to win the SB. So play better for 16 consecutive weeks then failing in the 17th does not make you better.
For all of those that are saying the 2007 Pats were better than the 01,03 and 04 Pats, are you saying they were better than the 2007 Giants? If so, why?

 

[Ring 6]

The loss of 1 game has poisoned the minds of even many of the most rational people here. The 2007 team the best team of the Belichick era, and in Patriots history

2003/4/7
QB: Brady/Brady/Brady - Nobody is going to say 2007 Brady isn't best, right?

RB: Smith/Dillon/Tandem - Ranking 04,07,03

3rd down back: Faulk 2007 in a landslide

O-line: Again, 2007 in a landslide Light had his best year, Neal was dominant against the run, Mankins was in place. Koppen had his best year and Kazcur was as good as any other RT

TE: Tough call. Personally, I see a 2004/2007 wash and 2003 a bit better than both

WR #1: 2007 (Moss)
WR #2: 2007 (Welker)
WR #3: 2007 (Gaffney)

So, on the offensive side of the ball, the Patriots were better in 2007 than either 2003 or 2004 at:

QB
3rd down RB
LT
LG
C
RG
RT
WR1
WR2
WR3

and there was probably not a single position on offense in 2007 that was weaker than that same position in both 2003 and 2004. I could probably add the FB to the argument, but I'm not sure how to compare them, since the roles changed a great deal.

Defensively:

Seymour
Warren
Wilfork

I think it's fair to say that Wilfork was better in 07 than 04, but not as good as Washington either time. Warren was he best partner for Seymour and Seymour was probably at his lowest in 2007.

That makes the D-line a push, at worst

Vrabel was at his best in 2007, and no OLB had a better season in either 03 or 04.

Samuel was playing at his highest level
Hobbs was playing at least as well as the #2 CBs for either '03 or '04

So, I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that being not quite as good at the other spots somehow makes that 2007 team weaker than the others. And, frankly, neither was anyone else until the team lost the Super Bowl.

Its not the loss of one game, its the failure to achieve the entire purpose of the season.
In 2009 would you rather have the Pats go 16-0 then lose the SB, or go 10-6 then win the SB? Which is 'better'?

 

[PYPER]

Lets' compare the 2003 and 2007 defenses. I've never been a big fan of rating defenses based on yardage so I'm only going to include the categories that I view as relevant and important.

Points Allowed:
2003: 14.9 (Rank 1st)..........2007: 17.1 (Rank 4th)

Rushing Yards per Carry (allowed)
2003: 3.6 (Rank 6th)..........2007: 4.4 (Rank 26th)

Rushing TD's Allowed
2003: 6 (Rank 6th)..........2007: 7 (Rank 3rd)

Completion Percentage (against)
2003: 53.1 (Rank 2nd)..........2007: 59.7 (Rank 12th)

Yards per attempt (allowed)
2003: 5.64 (Rank 1st)..........2007: 6.43 (Rank 7th)

Touchdown Passes Allowed
2003: 11 (Rank 1st)..........2007: 23 (Rank 18th)

Interceptions
2003: 29 (Rank 1st)..........2007: 19 (Rank 6th)

Sacks
2003: 41 (Rank 6th)..........2007: 47 (Rank 2nd)

Passer Rating Against
2003: 56.2 (Rank 1st)..........2007: 78.1 (Rank 11)
(Note: 2003 defense was more than 10 pts better than 2nd ranked Baltimore)

3rd/4th Down Defense
2003: 34.7% (Rank 7th).........2007: 35.7% (Rank 4th)

Takeaways
2003: 41 (Rank 2nd).......2007: 31 (Rank 9th)

 

[Deus Irae]

How is that a push? In Washington you have the greatest NT to ever play the game and a healthy Seymour is one of, if not "the" most physically dominating defensive linemen in our era. The 2007 version of Seymour was a shadow of himself. He wasn't healthy.

2007 Seymour was a better player that you're giving him credit for.

2003 Washington was excellent against the middle run, too slow for wide runs and useless against the pass. That doesn't mean that he wasn't better than Wilfork, overall, but it's not as if the gap between them is a vast and unbridgeable gulf. Furthermore, you neglect to look at that 3rd player. 2007 Warren is far better than 2004 Warren and better than anything put out there in 2003.

Interesting that you think Vrabel at 32 years of age and playing in his 11th season was better than he was at 28 and playing in his 7th season. I realize his numbers may have been better but this isn't baseball. You can't assesss football by analyzing box scores.

He made first team All-Pro and was absolutely unstoppable until Colvin went down. His age had nothing to do with his play. He was simply awesome in 2007.

Are you seriously going to compare the LB and DB corps of 2007 with 2003? In 2003 those units were the strength of the team. The depth and talent were far superior. In 2007 those units were the chinks in our armor. Those were our weak spots.

Look again and you'll find that I didn't rate the 2007 linebackers as even with 2003. You're making a straw man argument here.

Seriously? Really? Did you follow the pats back in 2003 or just start in 2007? Tyrone Poole played at a Pro Bowl level in 2003. He had a heck of a year. Our nickelback was Samuel and he, even as a rookie, was better than Hobbs.

Obviously we disagree here. That last sentence was amusing in its degree of inaccuracy, though, so thanks for the chuckle.

We all knew that the defense was flawed. But the offense was so unbelievably good that it didn't matter. Until the most important game, when it obviously did. But even more important than that was the style used. And yes, there were many of us that were critical of the team becoming too dependent on the passing game. We argued that that style didn't fit with playing playoff football in the frigid weather of Foxboro. Fortunately, BB and company realized the same and ran the ball more in the playoffs than they had been doing in the regular season. The same can't be said about the Super Bowl.

This is just a load of nonsense. Brady was hobbled and the team lost its starting right guard early in the game. The 'other' Brady wasn't healthy and Faulk got injured. The #1 O-line backup wasn't 100% healthy either. Despite all of that, the team would have won had Samuel (so great even as a rookie according to you) simply held on to an interception, had a helmet catch not bailed out the Giants on a hail mary pass, or had an official blown the whistle for either holding or in the grasp on that same play.

As I said, and as your post illustrates, one game has poisoned people's minds. Then again, given how ridiculous this fan base has gotten because of the early success under BB and the spoiling of the crowd, it's really not a surprise.

 

[Ring 6]

Now you sound like ol' Bubba Clinton. Depends what is is huh? I am not familiar with the Andy Johnson Dictionary definition of the word talent but thank you for the explanation. IMO, your definition confuses talent with performance. I'd prefer to go by the Websters definition.
tal·ent
Pronunciation:\ˈta-lənt\
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English, from Old English talente, from Latin talenta, plural of talentum unit of weight or money, from Greek talanton pan of a scale, weight; akin to Greek tlēnai to bear; in senses 2–5, from the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14–30 — more at tolerate
Date:before 12th century
1 a: any of several ancient units of weight b: a unit of value equal to the value of a talent of gold or silver
2archaic : a characteristic feature, aptitude, or disposition of a person or animal
3: the natural endowments of a person
4 a: a special often athletic, creative, or artistic aptitude b: general intelligence or mental power : ability
5: a person of talent or a group of persons of talent in a field or activity

I think most people understand talent with regard to sport as aptitude or capability. Let me ask you this Andy. Is it possible to not perform up to your talent level/capability/aptitude on a given day?

The '07 Pats played at something less than their full potential in SB 42. If they had played to their 100% talent they probably win going away. It still was almost enough and may have been on another day (Asante hangs on for an INT, Rodney jars the ball loose from Tyree, etc.). But the Giants played to their potential more fully and though less talented overall it was enough to overcome the deficit on that day. Same with Douglas vs. Tyson, Gardner vs. Karelin, and Villanova vs. Georgetown. Again, I don't see how anyone can legitimately argue that talent always wins out.

Is it impossible for you to understand that I include competitiveness, clutch ability, playing your best when it matters the most, and achieving the goal you set out to as part of talent?
Rodney Harrison had a lot of talent, but not being able to stop that catch when it matter most, is a characteristic that is included in my definition of talent.
It seems you want talent to be defined as everything that excludes the ability to win, I disagree.

 

[RDS11]

I will stand on my opinion that if you have a goal 'good' 'better' or 'best' is defined solely by achieving the goal.
"Better" by any other definition does not overcome acheiving the goal.
A team that does not win the SB cannot, by defintion, be better than a team that did. I think its very simple. The purpose of playing is to win the SB. So play better for 16 consecutive weeks then failing in the 17th does not make you better.
For all of those that are saying the 2007 Pats were better than the 01,03 and 04 Pats, are you saying they were better than the 2007 Giants? If so, why?

Using this logic, does it means that the 43 Super Bowl winners are the 43 best teams from the Super Bowl era ?
IMO, it's a reach...as I said previously, the 2nd best team from a given season might have won the Super Bowl in any other year. It just happen than on that year 1 team was better.

Also, that's not a definition you can apply on most sports. For example, would you say that James Douglas is better than Muhammad Ali ?? Well, Ali lost the title to Leon Spinks who lost to...who lost to Mike Tyson who lost to Douglas. All it shows, is that at the time Spinks was better than Ali. But you can't assume that Douglas would have beaten Ali.
This is why, again IMO, you can't use this definition of talent when evaluating team, or boxers for that matter, from different years/era.

 

[RDS11]

Lets' compare the 2003 and 2007 defenses. I've never been a big fan of rating defenses based on yardage so I'm only going to include the categories that I view as relevant and important.



Yards per attempt (allowed)
2003: 5.64 (Rank 1st)..........2007: 6.43 (Rank 7th)

Touchdown Passes Allowed
2003: 11 (Rank 1st)..........2007: 23 (Rank 18th)

Interceptions
2003: 29 (Rank 1st)..........2007: 19 (Rank 6th)

Sacks
2003: 41 (Rank 6th)..........2007: 47 (Rank 2nd)

Passer Rating Against
2003: 56.2 (Rank 1st)..........2007: 78.1 (Rank 11)
(Note: 2003 defense was more than 10 pts better than 2nd ranked Baltimore)

The 2003 team was very, very good against the pass. That's why I think the 2007 team would not have matched very well against them.
The 2003 allowed 11 TD against 29 picks and a passer rating of 56.2....that's incredible ! It's the equivalent of having Ryan Leaf as the opposing QB over an entire season !

 

[BradyFTW!]

So now we're going to pre-injury teams since the 2007 teams had injuries to Adalius and to the RB's? Even accounting for injuries, the 2003 and 2004 teams are STILL better than the 2007 team.

No, I wasn't sure what we were going by so I gave separate rankings depending on your preferences.

The 2003 and 2004 squads suffered catastrophic and league-leading injury numbers, and still had the best two year winning stretch of anybody in NFL history and also won 2 rings, beating all the top contenders from their conference those years.

Yeah, it was pretty awesome

As for the position by position breakdown, Deus is giving great bias in his rankings.

2007 Watson isn't even close to 2003 or 2004 Graham/Fauria especially at blocking or end zone catching.

I agree that the TEs were better in 2003.

Hobbs and both safeties in 2007 were nowhere near the level of Poole and Rodney/Eugene from 2003-2004.

2003 and 2004 were two separate years. Are you capable of understanding this simple fact? Because multiple people have pointed it out to you already. In the passage that you quoted, I agreed that the 2003 secondary was probably the best we've ever had. But in 2004 Poole was gone and Law was hurt. We were starting Randall Gay as our #2. 2007 Samuel > 2004 Samuel, Ellis Hobbs > Randall Gay.

The funny thing is Deus keeps harping about 18-0 with 1 loss being better than two 14-2 teams with rings, and at the same time will keep saying Brady is better than Manning by arguing about rings and ignoring the total wins and passing stats that Manning has, which are substantial.

Do you even read the posts that you're talking about, or do you just make stuff up? I'm pretty sure that's not what Deus said at all. Not what I said at all either, FWIW. I'll take Brady over Manning every time because Brady has proven superior, with lesser receivers, both indoors and outdoors. Any advantage that Manning has in volume statistics is due purely to playing most of his career in a dome and being surrounded by superior offensive talent, and the numbers bear that out. Plus Brady doesn't turn the ball over in the playoffs, which is significant.