2005 Patriots vs. 2009 Patriots

[mgteich]

Threre has been a lot of talk about how the team has gotten steadily worse.

Which do you think was a better team?

 

[upstater1]

I was just watching the Patriots All Access video on Caserio and my eye drifted over to the right toward the 2009 schedule, and there I saw the losses to Denver, Indy and Miami, and I realized how tantalizingly close this team was to a 14-2 record (losses to the Jets and Saints).

They would have had the 1st round bye and right now they'd be hosting the Jets for the privilege of hosting the Colts/Chargers at Foxboro the next week.

They absolutely mailed it in against the Ravens but if they had just played harder in the second half of those three games, I KNOW they'd be hosting the AFC CG.

Then all of us here would be looking at them quite differently.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I am in the vast minority but I think with the exception of 2007, the 2005 team was our best version post-championship. It was not good at the beginning but by the end I felt it was our most complete team I thought with the best pass rush since '04. Then we lost Willie and the defense was never the same quite frankly. The defense dominated in the WC round, then had Denver shut out till the turnover frenzy began. No doubt in my mind they'd have beaten Pittsburgh and Seattle had that fluke night not happened.

 

[Jimke]

In 2005, with the exception of the loss of Ted Johnson, the good

defense was still intact. The 2009 defense was poor by comparison.

 

[Sivy]

Which team was better, the 1983 patriots, or the 2002?

 

[patsfan55]

The front 7 was still playing at a very high level. I'll never forget trading Cadillac Williams in fantasy football just before that game (and the fantasy playoffs) when we played vs the bucs. Our front 7 destroyed Simms and Cadillac that game. Don't forget the 4.5 sacks my boy Willie got in that wc game vs the jags!

 

[patriotsdynasty12189]

That 05 schedule started off brutal. I remember that season so well.

Home vs Oakland, @Carolina, @ Pittsburgh, vs San Diego, @ Atlanta, @ Denver, bye, Vs Bills, Vs Colts were our first 8 games. That with 6 DBs on IR, and having Chad Scott, Duane Starks, Chad Brown, and Monty Biesel all getting substantial playing time

 

[mgteich]

Our starting ILB were Beisel. Who else did we have? Phifer and Bruschi were also gone. I guess they don't count.

In 2005, with the exception of the loss of Ted Johnson, the good

defense was still intact. The 2009 defense was poor by comparison.

 

[Deus Irae]

Our starting ILB were Beisel.

2009 started Guyton. What's your point? Bruschi played 9 games that season.

I'll take Bruschi post-stroke over Mayo post-knee, in terms of playing the rest of their 'comeback' season, and that's not pimping Bruschi. That's because Mayo struggled mightily.

 

[Kontradiction]

2005's defense was derailed by a huge amount of injuries and the loss of Ted Johnson, as someone else in here mentioned. However, that defense was back on and playing good football by the end of the season. 2009's defense, by comparison, was pretty piss poor.

 

[mgteich]

C'mon, that defense was way better than 2009; just read the other posters.

That 05 schedule started off brutal. I remember that season so well.

Home vs Oakland, @Carolina, @ Pittsburgh, vs San Diego, @ Atlanta, @ Denver, bye, Vs Bills, Vs Colts were our first 8 games. That with 6 DBs on IR, and having Chad Scott, Duane Starks, Chad Brown, and Monty Biesel all getting substantial playing time

 

[BradyManny]

I voted 2009 - but I can see why others would vote 2005. On paper, at the start of the year, the 2009 team was championship caliber, it just didn't pan out. We learned about the team's deficiencies along the way. 2005, we knew going in had certain holes to overcome. If it had defeated Denver, it might've made some noise.

 

[mgteich]

If Brady were healthy as everyone seemed to expect he would be, we'd still be playing this weekend after our bye.

I recall being called all kinds of names for suggesting before Training Camp that Brady might not be 100% for the season.

We criticize the media (and betters) for making us the Super Bowl favorite going into 2009. Of course, they did not know the nature of Brady's health at the beginning of the season and that he would be injured a couple of more times, and would play injured. They also didn't know that Seymour would be dumped.

 

[Kontradiction]

If Brady were healthy as everyone seemed to expect he would be, we'd still be playing this weekend after our bye.

I recall being called all kinds of names for suggesting before Training Camp that Brady might not be 100% for the season.

We criticize the media (and betters) for making us the Super Bowl favorite going into 2009. Of course, they did not know the nature of Brady's health at the beginning of the season and that he would be injured a couple of more times, and would play injured. They also didn't know that Seymour would be dumped.

I don't know. I always got a good laugh from the people calling 16-0 this season with Brady breaking his single season TD record from 2007.

 

[mgteich]

I did forecast 11-5 before Seymour was traded, and waffled after the trade. Even with all that happened, I think that we could have been that 11-5 team had we played our starters for entire last game.

I too got a good laugh at those who forecast 16-0. However, I didn't laugh at thise who thoght the offense could have been almost as great as 2007. We had Brady injured more than once, Edelman injured more than once, Tate injured for the second time in two years, our normal amount of running back injuries, and several OL injuries. And Galloway was a bust. We STILL had a top 5 offense!

I don't know. I always got a good laugh from the people calling 16-0 this season with Brady breaking his single season TD record from 2007.