Pre 2007 vs. Post 2007 Offense

[SVN]

Reading some of the threads about playcalling and gameplans got me thinking. Which offense /teams do you really prefer,ignoring the minor fact that they won SBs

the pre 2007 offense
-unpredictable every week.use every resource to win even if the player never played much again for the rest of the season e.g dedric ward vs indy, mike cloud vs tenn.always win those games which we have no shot at like playing the rams in stlouis with troy brown in the secondary.
-bad offensive game from brady -no problem - we win 9-6 against cleveland.
-win 14 games with record # of players on injury report

the post 2007 offense
-high powered , very scary ,quick strike offense
-more 3WR offense ,fast paced ,high scoring
-over reliant on brady to be great mostof the time
-not much power running game- 4th and1 and 3rd and2's are toss ups.

i know this is knee jerk but was wondering what everyone thinks.i give bb a lot of credit for reinventing the offense over the yrs. We have a habit of bashing who we have so iam as guilty as anyone .We complained about weiss ,mcdaniels and o'brien now but this is something i was curious what people feel about the two versions of the offense we have had.
my take - we have become over reliant on brady to be great if not perfect.like the colts of the yr past.
thoughts ?

 

[SoonerPatriot]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

While 2007 was a lot of fun, I really liked the 2004 offense with Dillon running people over on the way to a 1,600 yard season. Brady threw 28 TDs that year.

 

[Patspsycho]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

I personally thought the 2007 offense was overrated and unbalanced. I kept wondering when the bottom was going to fall out. I had a feeling it would key on Brady because he was so open the first half of the season.. almost like target practice.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Finesse offenses don't win the big games and that is exactly what happened in 2007

If you want to win a title you just can't go pass crazy all season and expect it to last or result into a championship

2 keys to a championship team are a great mixed balance of pass with smash mouth type running and a defense on the other side which does not have to be dominating but just does not break

The 2003 and 2004 Patriots were the latter and thats why 2 Lombardis are in the showcase.

So far from what I have seen this season is this is a finesse passing offense which BTW is not working very well and on top of that is a very unbalanced offense where the rushing attack is near non-existent,This is the type of offense that won't win games consistently if it stays like this and the defense is not making big plays like INTs and Sacks and that is another problem.

Not to mention that the 2 quarterbacks we have faced have had ample time to throw,If this continues imagine how many TDs Brees and Manning will lay on this D - Right now the pass rush is not only bad,its laughable and to tell you the truth even if this team improves to be a legitamate contender,the pass rush will still blow huge chunks all season....thats not only likely,its a near given probability.

 

[Patdown93]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

I loved the 2004 offense with Dillon. I also like the passing game we've had recently, but I'd like a more controlling passing game mixed with lots more running.

 

[Nikolai]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

I'm quite surprised it hasn't been more balanced. Why have 4 RBs, including Taylor, who was acquired, if the run-game is an afterthought? I really thought we were going to see something like a 60-40 in favor of runs in the early games. That kind of balance is good for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that most O-Lines benefit from a run game as much as anyone. "Passive" pass blocking is more tiring than "active" run blocking.

 

[pats1]

I prefer the offense that won a championship. And the defense that won a championship.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Give me the pre-2007 offensive playbook with the post-2007 talent. Let's have the best of both worlds. There's still time for that in 2009.

Regards,
Chris

 

[Oswlek]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Finesse offenses don't win the big games and that is exactly what happened in 2007

If you want to win a title you just can't go pass crazy all season and expect it to last or result into a championship

2 keys to a championship team are a great mixed balance of pass with smash mouth type running and a defense on the other side which does not have to be dominating but just does not break

The 2003 and 2004 Patriots were the latter and thats why 2 Lombardis are in the showcase.

So far from what I have seen this season is this is a finesse passing offense which BTW is not working very well and on top of that is a very unbalanced offense where the rushing attack is near non-existent,This is the type of offense that won't win games consistently if it stays like this and the defense is not making big plays like INTs and Sacks and that is another problem.

Not to mention that the 2 quarterbacks we have faced have had ample time to throw,If this continues imagine how many TDs Brees and Manning will lay on this D - Right now the pass rush is not only bad,its laughable and to tell you the truth even if this team improves to be a legitamate contender,the pass rush will still blow huge chunks all season....thats not only likely,its a near given probability.

Brady on a healthy ankle and NE puts up at least 24 against NY taking home the gold in 2007.

 

[mayoclinic]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Finesse offenses don't win the big games and that is exactly what happened in 2007

If you want to win a title you just can't go pass crazy all season and expect it to last or result into a championship

2 keys to a championship team are a great mixed balance of pass with smash mouth type running and a defense on the other side which does not have to be dominating but just does not break

The 2003 and 2004 Patriots were the latter and thats why 2 Lombardis are in the showcase.

So far from what I have seen this season is this is a finesse passing offense which BTW is not working very well and on top of that is a very unbalanced offense where the rushing attack is near non-existent,This is the type of offense that won't win games consistently if it stays like this and the defense is not making big plays like INTs and Sacks and that is another problem.

Not to mention that the 2 quarterbacks we have faced have had ample time to throw,If this continues imagine how many TDs Brees and Manning will lay on this D - Right now the pass rush is not only bad,its laughable and to tell you the truth even if this team improves to be a legitamate contender,the pass rush will still blow huge chunks all season....thats not only likely,its a near given probability.

I've said this for a long time.

Pass-happy offenses which throw up tons of points don't generally win SBs. They tend to get upset by more balanced power teams with running games and tough defenses. Consider favored San Francisco losing to the Giants 15-13 in 1990 (and the Bills losing in the next game), record-setting Minnesota being upset by Atlanta in the 1998 AFCCG, St. Louis being upset by NE in 2001, Indy losing to NE in 2003-2004, and NE losing to the Giants in the 2007 SB. Occasionally a team may pull it off, such as St. Louis narrowly escaping Tennessee in the 1999 SB. But not very often.

SB teams need balanced offenses and physical defenses. Teams make adjustments over the course of the season (the 2007 Patriots did not dominate teams the second half of the season the way they did the first). Playoff teams are tough. The weather gets cold, and favors a running game.

I'll take 2003-2004 over 2007 any day, regardless of people whining that we would have won "if". The Rams think they would have won "if", too. "If" never cuts it.

 

[Rob0729]

I like the 2004 offense the best, but the 2007 offense wasn't the reason the Pats didn't win the Super Bowl. The 2003 offense was mediocre and the Pats won with outstanding defense.

The funny thing is in 2003 people complained about many of the same things people complained about offenses since 2004. In 2003, people complained that the Pats would abandon the run, couldn't convert 3rd downs, was too predictable. It wasn't until 2004 when Weis became the legend by doing a lot of the things people attribute to his entire tenure.

I would love to get back to the 2004 offense, but the defense needs to step up too. I still think the Pats have been using the offense in recent years to hide the deficiencies in the defense. I still don't get why people are so offensively focused on this team when the Pats won two of their three Super Bowls in seasons where the defense played stout and the offense was just ask not to make mistakes. Even with the rule changes, I still think defense is more important to offense in a championship season and no one really has talked about the defense until we had all the change overs this year.

 

[Oswlek]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

I've said this for a long time.

Pass-happy offenses which throw up tons of points don't generally win SBs. They tend to get upset by more balanced power teams with running games and tough defenses. Consider favored San Francisco losing to the Giants 15-13 in 1990 (and the Bills losing in the next game), record-setting Minnesota being upset by Atlanta in the 1998 AFCCG, St. Louis being upset by NE in 2001, Indy losing to NE in 2003-2004, and NE losing to the Giants in the 2007 SB. Occasionally a team may pull it off, such as St. Louis narrowly escaping Tennessee in the 1999 SB. But not very often.

SB teams need balanced offenses and physical defenses. Teams make adjustments over the course of the season (the 2007 Patriots did not dominate teams the second half of the season the way they did the first). Playoff teams are tough. The weather gets cold, and favors a running game.

I'll take 2003-2004 over 2007 any day, regardless of people whining that we would have won "if". The Rams think they would have won "if", too. "If" never cuts it.

Who wouldn't?

 

[mayoclinic]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Who wouldn't?

Lots of people on this board, who live in the fantasy that 2007 was a Utopia because we went 16-0 and set scoring records, and that we only lost the SB as a fluke. I'll personally take a SB any day.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Lots of people on this board, who live in the fantasy that 2007 was a Utopia because we went 16-0 and set scoring records, and that we only lost the SB as a fluke. I'll personally take a SB any day.

The Pats were a fluke couple of plays from winning the Super Bowl in 2007, but I agree I would rather have a Super Bowl. I think the defense let the Pats down in the 2007 Super Bowl as much as the offense though. The Pats had three different plays on defense where they could have ended the game and they blew it.

Again, I still think people focus too much on the offensive side of the ball. If you look back at 2001, 2003, and 2004; most of the big time plays and players were on the defensive side of the ball. You had Brady and Dillon (at least 2004) and Branch on offense, but the defense had Harrison, Law, Seymour, Bruschi, Vrabel, Phifer, Milloy (2001), McGinest, and Ted Washington.I think this teams misses the hard nosed, opportunistic defenses of that era than the balanced offense of 2004. If the 2007 Pats had the 2003 defense, not only would they have gone 19-0, but they would have been considered the best team ever. I think if you gave the 2004 Pats, the 2007 defense that they may not even get into the Super Bowl.

 

[maverick4]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

I've said this for a long time.

Pass-happy offenses which throw up tons of points don't generally win SBs. They tend to get upset by more balanced power teams with running games and tough defenses. Consider favored San Francisco losing to the Giants 15-13 in 1990 (and the Bills losing in the next game), record-setting Minnesota being upset by Atlanta in the 1998 AFCCG, St. Louis being upset by NE in 2001, Indy losing to NE in 2003-2004, and NE losing to the Giants in the 2007 SB. Occasionally a team may pull it off, such as St. Louis narrowly escaping Tennessee in the 1999 SB. But not very often.

SB teams need balanced offenses and physical defenses. Teams make adjustments over the course of the season (the 2007 Patriots did not dominate teams the second half of the season the way they did the first). Playoff teams are tough. The weather gets cold, and favors a running game.

I'll take 2003-2004 over 2007 any day, regardless of people whining that we would have won "if". The Rams think they would have won "if", too. "If" never cuts it.

I agree 1000%. Been saying this (admittedly like a broken record) the past few years, even when we were breaking offensive records and doing our best 03 Colts or 01 Rams impersonation.

I guess people are starting to come around now that it's blatantly obvious that a finesse, predictable offense over-reliant on passing talent gets shut down by a physical attacking D. We should have learned this with our success in 01, 03, 04 shutting down prolific offenses, but most of the fan base didn't learn. They got sucked in by the sexy stats we used to make fun of in 2003.

 

[maverick4]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

The Pats were a fluke couple of plays from winning the Super Bowl in 2007, but I agree I would rather have a Super Bowl. I think the defense let the Pats down in the 2007 Super Bowl as much as the offense though. The Pats had three different plays on defense where they could have ended the game and they blew it.

Again, I still think people focus too much on the offensive side of the ball. If you look back at 2001, 2003, and 2004; most of the big time plays and players were on the defensive side of the ball. You had Brady and Dillon (at least 2004) and Branch on offense, but the defense had Harrison, Law, Seymour, Bruschi, Vrabel, Phifer, Milloy (2001), McGinest, and Ted Washington.I think this teams misses the hard nosed, opportunistic defenses of that era than the balanced offense of 2004. If the 2007 Pats had the 2003 defense, not only would they have gone 19-0, but they would have been considered the best team ever. I think if you gave the 2004 Pats, the 2007 defense that they may not even get into the Super Bowl.

Excuse making for 07, sounds like the same lame excuses given by 01 Rams fans, or 03-04 Colts fans. They don't get it about why their superstar offense lost; they think they were the better team even now, and keep making excuses about 'if this happened we would have won'.

The 2003 Patriots defense would have completely shut down the 2007 Patriots offense. Both 2003 or 2004 Patriots teams would beat the 2007 Patriots team most of the time, even if you had 100 simulations. All the excuse making and head scratching, is the same confusion Colts fans experienced for why they didn't win championships in 2003 or 2004, or Rams in 2001 with a great defense that year too which most people don't mention.

 

[mgteich]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

20 years from now, folks will still be talking about the 16-0 season. Few outside of New England will recall the 2002 Super Bowl.

Lots of people on this board, who live in the fantasy that 2007 was a Utopia because we went 16-0 and set scoring records, and that we only lost the SB as a fluke. I'll personally take a SB any day.

 

[maverick4]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

20 years from now, folks will still be talking about the 16-0 season. Few outside of New England will recall the 2002 Super Bowl.

Nope.

Just like the 98 Falcons or 01 Rams, the 07 Pats will not be mainstream history among the common fan 20 years from now.

Do you know anything about the Chargers Coryell offense?

 

[DaedalusX]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Nope.

Just like the 98 Falcons or 01 Rams, the 07 Pats will not be mainstream history among the common fan 20 years from now.

Do you know anything about the Chargers Coryell offense?

Refresh my memory, which of those other two teams went 16-0?

Yes, 19-0 would have been better, or the right 18-1 would have been better. But saying 20 years from now people will remember the 2002 Pats SB win more than the 2007 Pats 16-0 -- first in NFL history -- is just asinine.

 

[mayoclinic]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Refresh my memory, which of those other two teams went 16-0?

Yes, 19-0 would have been better, or the right 18-1 would have been better. But saying 20 years from now people will remember the 2002 Pats SB win more than the 2007 Pats 16-0 -- first in NFL history -- is just asinine.

Who cares what people remember? Maybe they'll remember that we had a chance to close a perfect season in 2007 and blew it. Jee, that's a nice memory.

Regardless of what others remember, we can always know that we won it all in 2001, 2003 and 2004. We can't make that statement about 2007.