Parallels Between 2009 Patriots and 2003-2004 Colts

[maverick4]

Replace them with the '84 Dolphins. Marino always in shotgun, spreading the field...5000 yds, 48 TDs. Really had no serious running game. Duper (18TDs) and Clayton were their Moss and Welker. Defense was suspect. 49ers kept Marino in check with rushing just 4 and scored at will on the D.

Regards,
Chris

Chris,

GREAT point, need to bring that 84 Dolphins team into the discussion.

D.Marino, 1984 playoff loss against 49ers
29/50, 318 yds, 1td, 2int. RB's run a total of 8 times.

 

[maverick4]

Of course the 2003 team beat the 2007 team. I will always bet on a team with a superior defense and a mediocre offense over a superior offense with a mediocre defense. The old cliche "defense wins championships" isn't that way because it isn't true.

So why are we trying to become (or already have become) the 2003-2004 Colts, or the 2001 Rams?

 

[Satchboogie3]

I think you guys are reading too much into this. OF COURSE the best, most physical, defenses in football will give even great offensives trouble. Of course great offenses might even have horrid games against great defenses. That DOESN'T mean that there is a better way to attack such defenses.

I don't think ANYONE is arguing that the Patriots should just throw the ball 80% of the time. No successful offense has done that. Despite the perception, the '07 Patriots ran the ball 43% of the time (57% passing) for 4.1 Y/A. The '03-'04 Colts had about the same 43%-57% ratio. The only year the pats ran the ball more than 50% of the time was in '04. There is no single offense that will guarantee points. The Colts have always been a fairly balanced offense, they just happen to have an amazing passing game to along with a good running game.

You can't just single out individual games and go "Oh look, the pass happy offense didn't work!". Manning, for example, has been great against the Ravens in his career (5-2 record, 106.1 QB Rating).

Lets not forget that Brady and this offense torched the Giants for 38 points and 346 passing yards in '07. Perhaps Belichick's game plan for the SB was based around a pass happy offense because of the success we had against them in week 17. Logic, of course, always seems to get in the way.

 

[maverick4]

I think you guys are reading too much into this. OF COURSE the best, most physical, defenses in football will give even great offensives trouble. Of course great offenses might even have horrid games against great defenses. That DOESN'T mean that there is a better way to attack such defenses.

Despite the perception, the '07 Patriots ran the ball 43% of the time (57% passing) for 4.1 Y/A. The '03-'04 Colts had about the same 43%-57% ratio.

1. There are many instances of average offense teams with great D's beating explosive offensive teams in big playoff games, even going back each of the past 30 years. Can you say the same thing about the reverse, naming some dominant offenses that beat great D's? Physical great D almost always beats the great offense.

2. Interesting that you posted that pass/run ratio showing how both teams didn't have a strong commitment to the run, and don't see how their losses are somehow related

 

[crypto]

[Sigh.]

Colts: 2003
Games played: 16

Colts: 2004
Games played: 16

Patriots: 2009
Games played: 2

---

33Manning: 2003
Games played: 16

Manning: 2004
Games played: 16

Brady: 2009
Games played: 2

Looks to me like Indy/Manning outplayed NE/Brady by an average of exactly 8.0 games played per season. Hot damn; we really do suck. PANIC!

 

[Satchboogie3]

1. There are many instances of average offense teams with great D's beating explosive offensive teams in big playoff games, even going back each of the past 30 years. Can you say the same thing about the reverse, naming some dominant offenses that beat great D's? Physical great D almost always beats the great offense.

2. Interesting that you posted that pass/run ratio showing how both teams didn't have a strong commitment to the run, and don't see how their losses are somehow related

1. Yes, there are. BUT, the best offenses in the league will IN THE LONG RUN have the most success. Yes, some teams just don't play other well (Colts vs NE in the playoffs vs early BB defense, NE vs Denver, etc), but in the long run, the stronger the offense (no matter how it is done), the better the results.

2. I don't know why a team needs to run the ball more than 50% of the time. Again, in 2001 and 2003, we ran the ball less than 50% of the time AND it wasn't as productive (3.6 Y/A in '01+'03 vs 4.1 Y/A in '07).

Seriously, this "have to run run run" is getting ridiculous. The Steelers won the SB last year because of Big Ben and their defense. They ran the ball less than 50% of the time last year, as well as averaging just 3.7 Y/A, ranking 29th in the NFL.

The Colts, well, I've already explained that they run the ball well enough and they won in 06 because their defense got it together. Manning picked apart our weak secondary (similarly to how Brady picked apart the Giants in 07 week 17).

The Steelers won the SB in '05 with, yes a strong running game, but it was partly due to the young QB they had. Their offense was middle of the pack, their defense is what won it for them

2003-2004 Pats had a balanced offense, defense was beastly.
2002 was TB, who passed almost 60% of the time, didn't have a good running game, won because they had the #1 defense in the league

01 pats were a balanced offensive team that came together late and had a good defense.

REALLY, winning the Superbowl comes down to who is peaking at the end of the season. The #1 defense doesn't always win, nor does the #1 offense. Sometimes, the best team doesn't win. In the long run, though, the best team out there will win. It doesn't matter how they win (strong D, strong O, passing, running, etc).

I just don't get it. The '07 Patriots were 1 play from going undefeated. Their offense had a stinker and the still almost won. There is no set "blueprint", offensive/defense style, or team that will guarantee a win. That's why they play the game.

This thread is also misleading. The 2003-2004 Colts were GREAT teams. They just ran into a better/hotter team in the playoffs.

1 last thing. The Colts are 82-27 (75%) since 2002 (including playoffs) and the Patriots are 19-2 since 2007 (with Brady). How do you possibly argue against that? If you want to mention the defense, fine. I agree that teams with great defenses tend to have more success in the playoffs (they still need a potent offense, though), but to complain about not being "tough" enough on offense or not running enough is ridiculous.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Our defense is going to be better than the 03-04 Colts. We are much better up front IMO.

 

[maverick4]

1. Yes, there are. BUT, the best offenses in the league will IN THE LONG RUN have the most success. Yes, some teams just don't play other well (Colts vs NE in the playoffs vs early BB defense, NE vs Denver, etc), but in the long run, the stronger the offense (no matter how it is done), the better the results.

This thread is also misleading. The 2003-2004 Colts were GREAT teams. They just ran into a better/hotter team in the playoffs.

1 last thing. The Colts are 82-27 (75%) since 2002 (including playoffs) and the Patriots are 19-2 since 2007 (with Brady). How do you possibly argue against that? If you want to mention the defense, fine. I agree that teams with great defenses tend to have more success in the playoffs (they still need a potent offense, though),

1. I agree with you that potent offenses historically have great winning percentages. However, you yourself admitted that come playoff time it's about DEFENSE and an offense not committed to either run or pass.

2. The 2003 and 2004 Colts, or 2001 Rams, or 98 Falcons, or 07 Patriots, did not run into "hotter" teams. Their style of play got exposed. It appears pretty clear that for those teams, the opposing defense was willing to give up a few more yards per rush because they knew the offense couldn't help but keep stubbornly passing and using the same predictive patterns.

3. Teams that have won the championship have demonstrated a willingness to run even if it means pounding the ball running all game despite mixed early results. There are few outliers in 30+ years of football of course, but when an opposing team knows you are stubbornly committed to passing OR running, those teams historically aren't holding the ring at the end.

 

[Satchboogie3]

1. I agree with you that potent offenses historically have great winning percentages. However, you yourself admitted that come playoff time it's about DEFENSE and an offense not committed to either run or pass.

I said a balanced team overall. The Colts were a great team and fairly balanced. They had an amazing offense to make up for their below-average to bad defense. HOWEVER, don't forget that the Colts still won regular season games against the Pats. The Colts got flat out out-coached in the playoffs in '03 and '04. Manning got horribly confused and it cost them.

2. The 2003 and 2004 Colts, or 2001 Rams, or 98 Falcons, or 07 Patriots, did not run into "hotter" teams. Their style of play got exposed. It appears pretty clear that for those teams, the opposing defense was willing to give up a few more yards per rush because they knew the offense couldn't help but keep stubbornly passing and using the same predictive patterns.

This is what I don't get. Their "style" of play didn't get exposed, they lost games when it mattered. The '03 and '04 Colts got out-coached and Manning played awful (it does happen, you know). The 2001 Rams nearly won that game. It was a close fought contest and they happened to come up on the wrong end of it. Don't act like they got destroyed. The Pats again out-coached the Rams and executed perfectly.

The '07 Patriots especially weren't exposed. The lost a hard fought SB by 3 points on a miracle drive to the same team they put up 38 points on just weeks earlier. I don't think Brady was as healthy as he let on, we didn't get the breaks, and the defense out played our offense. Our defense shut them down, though, so again, we almost won that game. 18 straight wins seems to suggest that this WAS the best team in the league, the "any given Sunday" just managed to catch up with them at the worst time.

3. Teams that have won the championship have demonstrated a willingness to run even if it means pounding the ball running all game despite mixed early results. There are few outliers in 30+ years of football of course, but when an opposing team knows you are stubbornly committed to passing OR running, those teams historically aren't holding the ring at the end.

How is a team that runs the ball close to 50% of the time somehow not "committed" to the run? I don't get this. You go with what ever works. There isn't much reason to "stick with it" if it isn't working. I agree that you do want to try to run a little to open up the passing game... but if the passing game is already there, whats the point? You go with what ever is working best. That is the whole Patriot approach. That is what won them 3 SB.

The point is, you field a team that gives you the best chance to win every week. If you have a great defense, but an anemic offense, you might not even reach the playoffs, let alone win a championship. There is no way to guarantee one win. You do what ever gives you the best chance to win the most games. I think the Belichick has always done just that. Some times you win ('01, '03, '04), sometimes you lose ('05, '06, '07). We won 3 championships and were 1 play from winning a 4th. That seems to show that Belichick is doing a damned good job at fielding teams capable at winning it all.

 

[maverick4]

This is what I don't get. Their "style" of play didn't get exposed, they lost games when it mattered. The '03 and '04 Colts got out-coached and Manning played awful (it does happen, you know). The 2001 Rams nearly won that game. It was a close fought contest and they happened to come up on the wrong end of it. Don't act like they got destroyed. The Pats again out-coached the Rams and executed perfectly.

18 straight wins seems to suggest that this WAS the best team in the league, the "any given Sunday" just managed to catch up with them at the worst time.
.

1. You referenced more than two times that the losing teams were "out coached". What do you mean by this? I take this to mean that their stubborn tendencies were exposed, that they didn't adjust, and thus the 01 Rams, and 03-04 Colts fans lost. The execution piece you reference, is related to the poor coaching (meaning, predictable tendencies).

2. I agree with you that the 2007 season, even with the Superbowl loss, was a great F-YOU response to the league and media after the Video Witch Hunt. Their loss at the end, however, was just as predictable as some of the other recent losses of stubborn high-powered offenses.

 

[Poker]

Interesting thread. The part of the debate that I haven't seen raised is that rules/conditions in 2001-2004 (Rams/Colts offensive machines) are different in some relevant and important ways than 2007+. For example:

-- continuing clarification and enforcement of illegal contact and pass interference infractions, favoring the offense's passing.

-- ever-increasing protection of the quarterback over the past few years, favoring the drop back passer vs seek and destroy defense

-- If you look at other analytical sites, e.g. Cold Hard Football Facts, etc, there is a high degree of correlation between yards/pass attempt and winning.

What does everybody think? Is it possible that ongoing rules changes and interpretations have made it more advantageous to play as the Pats are, and that BB is simply adapting?

 

[Satchboogie3]

1. You referenced more than two times that the losing teams were "out coached". What do you mean by this? I take this to mean that their stubborn tendencies were exposed, that they didn't adjust, and thus the 01 Rams, and 03-04 Colts fans lost. The execution piece you reference, is related to the poor coaching (meaning, predictable tendencies).

My point is that there is really no set "perfect" strategy/game plan. We managed to execute and make a couple more plays than the Rams, etc and that's why we won. It could have just as easily gone the other way if the Rams executed better and made a couple less mistakes, etc. My whole point is that there is no such "perfect" team or "perfect" game plan. Every team has weakness, ever strategy has a counter, and so on. The team that has less holes, can adjust if they're game plan isn't working, and can execute, will generally win.

Thus, there is no reason behind this "we must get a better running game, blah blah". No, we need to have a better overall team than the opponents we face and we must execute.

2. I agree with you that the 2007 season, even with the Superbowl loss, was a great F-YOU response to the league and media after the Video Witch Hunt. Their loss at the end, however, was just as predictable as some of the other recent losses of stubborn high-powered offenses.

Generally, the way the Giants played is predictable. Either they get to Brady quick enough to disrupt him and try to win a close game, or Brady hits the open receivers down field and puts up 30+ in a blowout or shootout (like week 17 game). It wasn't because we were "soft". The Jets ran a similar "risky" defense while Brady was CLEARLY not 100%. I don't know how you can compare that to the Superbowl.

Let me just say this one more time, because I'm not sure you fully understand it. We did not loose to the Giants in the Superbowl because our offense was "exposed" or any other nonsense. We lost the Superbowl because the Giants Oline played the game of their lives, Brady's shoulder was likely bothering him and he wasn't getting the ball out of his hand quite quick enough (or was missing his receivers). The defense did it's job and we STILL almost won the game, despite the offensive problems. Of course, we could have made better half time adjustments, but who says that they would have made the difference?

 

[maverick4]

We did not loose to the Giants in the Superbowl because our offense was "exposed" or any other nonsense. We lost the Superbowl because the Giants Oline played the game of their lives, Brady's shoulder was likely bothering him and he wasn't getting the ball out of his hand quite quick enough (or was missing his receivers). The defense did it's job and we STILL almost won the game, despite the offensive problems.

This mentality that the Giants D was simply unstoppable that day, and that the Patriots could have done nothing differently to win, is absurd. It is a lazy way to summarize that game, in a way that allows the same mistakes to be made going forward. The first two games this year are very similar to the last 07 game, with defenses effectively shutting down our predictable, repetitive passing attack with a ferocious pass rush.

 

[maverick4]

-- If you look at other analytical sites, e.g. Cold Hard Football Facts, etc, there is a high degree of correlation between yards/pass attempt and winning.

What does everybody think? Is it possible that ongoing rules changes and interpretations have made it more advantageous to play as the Pats are, and that BB is simply adapting?

Agree with the first part. There is a very good track record of explosive passing offenses winning many games, just not the last one in their seasons.

I think you're over-estimating how much the new rules have changed who wins championships in the league. In my opinion it has made pass rush, nickel D, and pass protection even more important, and the Pats have issues in those areas.

 

[Satchboogie3]

This mentality that the Giants D was simply unstoppable that day, and that the Patriots could have done nothing differently to win, is absurd. It is a lazy way to summarize that game, in a way that allows the same mistakes to be made going forward. The first two games this year are very similar to the last 07 game, with defenses effectively shutting down our predictable, repetitive passing attack with a ferocious pass rush.

Um, No. The reason this team has struggled early on this year is because Brady isn't playing well. If you look at game film from this year you will see that Brady is releasing the ball too early to often (when he still has time), he is missing his targets, and he isn't planting his feet. His pocket presence is crap right now.

What happened in the Superbowl was that the Giants played near perfect defense for 60 minutes. It's a game of inches. A few plays go our way and we are looking at a totally different out come. Belichick was planning on the defense to tire out in the 2nd half, and they did, just to late. 95% of the time, the Giants Miracle drive ends without a score and we win that game. It's called luck and it is an inherent aspect of sports. Hindsight is great, but it doesn't change anything.

 

[maverick4]

What happened in the Superbowl was that the Giants played near perfect defense for 60 minutes.

Again, very lazy to attribute the loss to simply luck, and that the Giants played a 'near perfect defense' which we could do nothing differently about. Our own plays and actions had something to do with the loss, too. You'd never know it from excuse-makers like yourself, who alternate between a bag of excuses like that Brady was injured, the Giants were blessed by God that day, or the refs blew a call, etc etc.

The Jets just beat us using a very similar defensive tactic, which we still haven't shown anybodyy in the league that we can beat.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Again, very lazy to attribute the loss to simply luck, and that the Giants played a 'near perfect defense' which we could do nothing differently about. Our own plays and actions had something to do with the loss, too. You'd never know it from excuse-makers like yourself, who alternate between a bag of excuses like that Brady was injured, the Giants were blessed by God that day, or the refs blew a call, etc etc.

The Jets just beat us using a very similar defensive tactic, which we still haven't shown anybodyy in the league that we can beat.

Again, there is a luck factor. No doubt Belichick could have made better adjustments, but the problem WAS NOT a lack of talent, play makers, or philosophy. We simply couldn't make the plays we needed to. Again, 95% of the time, the Giants don't make a comeback and we win that game. It's like shoving with pocket Aces preflop. Even with the best hand, you are still going to lose roughly 17% of the time. You hope that it doesn't happen during the important allin near the money, but sometimes it does. That's just life.

 

[maverick4]

Again, there is a luck factor. No doubt Belichick could have made better adjustments, but the problem WAS NOT a lack of talent, play makers, or philosophy. We simply couldn't make the plays we needed to. Again, 95% of the time, the Giants don't make a comeback and we win that game. It's like shoving with pocket Aces preflop. Even with the best hand, you are still going to lose roughly 17% of the time. You hope that it doesn't happen during the important allin near the money, but sometimes it does. That's just life.

I think you're giving too much blame/credit to Belichick. He isn't micro-managing every single play call during a game, he's letting his coordinators win/lose the game for him.

Also your poker analogy implies that you think the coaches called a great game/plays and that it simply didn't work out. You don't think we could have done anything differently? How about that horrible 9-man blitz for Eli's TD, or the last Pats drive where we pissed the game away?

 

[maverick4]

This current offense isn't like the 03-04 Colts offense or 01 Rams offense because it's "soft".

It is like them and fails because it is over-reliant on repetitive, predictable plays to the same people.

Teams which scout us know what we try to do, and stop it.

We are long time away from when week to week, you never knew which guy was going to step up and be featured on offense.

 

[SVN]

our team resembles the 03-04 colts such that they are greedy for the big play. Thats they way we beat those colts ..asking them to be patient and allowing them to make mistakes and right now we are doing the same. today's game is a perfect example .up 7-3 ball on saints 45. Against a high powered offense, we come out on an empty backfield. At least a play action wouldve slowed the pass rush a bit but no.We want to spread the field with just moss and welker as our best WR. saints doubled them both and brady couldnt do anything with watson,and aiken. If they had run instead continously maybe it wouldve been different but they dont have any patience on offense which sadly is going to contribute to more closer games than it should be.