- Joined
- May 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,274
- Reaction score
- 0
There have been two posts that have aggravated me today:
Without a doubt, these are misconceptions. I would like to address these.
As many of you already, I'm a firm believer in "a win is a win" and a team's record determining its status in the league (is that not how the entire system works?) Therefore, with the 2006 Patriots' record the way it is at 4 losses, it will be impossible for it to match that of the 2003 and 2004 Patriots at 2 losses.
Human tendency is to inflate the achievements of the past while downplaying the achievements of the present. For example, we may think back to January 2005, remember that dominating 20-3 win over the Colts in the dusk snow of the Razor, and say "the 2006 Patriots haven't been able to do that." This game, along with other exciting playoff wins, is played on a win-or-go-home stage where these achievements are most remembered.
Lost in the past are games such as the shootout win against the Bengals, or the loss in Miami to a team with the exact opposite record as the Pats, or a humiliating shutout loss in Buffalo. They're forgotten when we recall the past. However, when similar situations occur in the present, such as a shootout win against the Lions, or a humiliating shutout loss in Miami, these performances are scrutinized. Observations of the game spawn dire predictions and "this isn't the same team as 2003/4" statements. Human nature.
I'm never a fan of putting a "label" on a team, such as "Super Bowl caliber" or "quality opponent." These are made purely out of personal satisfaction with a particular team or opponent.
So when we take a statistical approach to see where these teams actually stack up against each other, even I get caught up in personal, rather pointless evaluations. However, the whole concept of stats and rankings places these 3 teams (2006, 2004, 2003) on equal footing, and in comparison to the competition they face (i.e. rankings) on the road to a championship.
Without droning on any further, here is my rebuttal to those that believe the 2006 offense is anemic and can't hold a candle to the "infallible" offenses of 2003 and 2004: (this was posted in another thread)
2006 offense:
Passing yards/game: 14th (most)
Passing TDs: 9th (most)
INTs: 11th (least)
Sacks: 11th (least)
Rushing yards/game: 13th (most)
Rushing TDs: 5th (most)
Scoring offense: 9th (best)
Offensive time of possession: 7th (best)
Total offensive yards/game: 13th (most)
2004 offense:
Passing yards/game: 11th (most)
Passing TDs: 6th (most)
INTs: 12th (least)
Sacks: 5th (least)
Rushing yards/game: 7th (most)
Rushing TDs: 9th (most)
Scoring offense: 4th (best)
Offensive time of possession: 7th (best)
Total offensive yards/game: 7th (most)
2003 offense:
Passing yards/game: 9th (most)
Passing TDs: 12th (most)
INTs: 6th (least)
Sacks: 14th (least)
Rushing yards/game: 27th (most)
Rushing TDs: 25th (most)
Scoring offense: 12th (best)
Offensive time of possession: 11th (best)
Total offensive yards/game: 17th (most)
...
Rankings:
Best to worst by rankings:
Passing yards/game: 2003, 2004, 2006
Passing TDs: 2004, 2006, 2003
INTs: 2003, 2006, 2004
Sacks: 2004, 2006, 2003
Rushing yards/game: 2004, 2006, 2003
Rushing TDs: 2006, 2004, 2003
Scoring offense: 2004, 2006, 2003
Offensive time of possession: 2004/6 tie, 2003
Total offensive yards/game: 2004, 2006, 2003
2004: 6 first place, 2 second place, 1 third place
2006: 2 first place, 6 second place, 1 third place
2003: 2 first place, 0 second place, 7 third place
The 2006 offense is worse than a Super Bowl winning team, yet better than a Super Bowl winning team.
Therefore, no one can say this isn't a "Super Bowl caliber" offense.
...
2006 Defense:
3rd down conversion percentage: 11th (best)
4th down conversion percentage: 4th (best)
Defensive time of possession: 7th (least)
Passing yards/game: 13th (least)
Passing TDs: 1st (least)
INTs: 3rd (most)
Sacks: 8th (most)
Rushing yards/game: 4th (least)
Rushing TDs: 6th (least)
Points/game: 2nd (least)
Total defensive yards/game: 6th (least)
2004 Defense:
3rd down conversion percentage: 21th (best)
4th down conversion percentage: 14th (best)
Defensive time of possession: 7th (least)
Passing yards/game: 17th (least)
Passing TDs: 9th (least)
INTs: 7th (most)
Sacks: 4th (most)
Rushing yards/game: 6th (least)
Rushing TDs: 8th (least)
Points/game: 2nd (least)
Total defensive yards/game: 9th (least)
2003 Defense:
3rd down conversion percentage: 7th (best)
4th down conversion percentage: 7th (best)
Defensive time of possession: 11th (least)
Passing yards/game: 15th (least)
Passing TDs: 1st (least)
INTs: 1st (most)
Sacks: 6th (most)
Rushing yards/game: 4th (least)
Rushing TDs: 7th (least)
Points/game: 1st (least)
Total defensive yards/game: 7th (least)
Rankings:
Best to worst by rankings:
3rd down conversion percentage: 2003, 2006, 2004
4th down conversion percentage: 2006, 2003, 2004
Defensive time of possession: 2004/6 tie, 2003
Passing yards/game: 2006, 2003, 2004
Passing TDs: 2003/6 tie, 2004
INTs: 2003, 2006, 2004
Sacks: 2004, 2003, 2006
Rushing yards/game: 2003/6 tie, 2004
Rushing TDs: 2006, 2003, 2004
Points/game: 2003, 2004/6 tie
Total defensive yards/game: 2006, 2003, 2004
2006: 7 first place, 3 second place, 1 third place
2003: 5 first place, 5 second place, 1 third place
2004: 2 first place, 1 second place, 8 third place
The 2006 defense is better than that of two Super Bowl winning teams.
...
Total Rankings:
2006: 9 first place, 9 second place, 2 third place
2004: 8 first place, 3 second place, 9 third place
2003: 7 first place, 5 second place, 8 third place
...
Take it for what it's worth, as the 2003 and 2004 teams still hold better records, but statistically the 2006 Patriots hold a combined advantage over the 2003 and 2004 teams in 20 important categories.
We'll let January and February decide if the 2006 Patriots truly match up against their Lombardi-hoisting predecessors. If so, this 2006 team would be, by the statistical categories listed above, the best of the Super Bowl winning teams.
Take away the fluke screen pass that went for 43 yards and the Pats had a grand total of 82 yards passing against the 28th ranked defense in the NFL last Sunday. Basically, the Pats offense is dead in the water right now.
How can you explain not punching it in from the 5 yard line? Face it, we have a lot of problems on offense. Plain and simple.
Without a doubt, these are misconceptions. I would like to address these.
As many of you already, I'm a firm believer in "a win is a win" and a team's record determining its status in the league (is that not how the entire system works?) Therefore, with the 2006 Patriots' record the way it is at 4 losses, it will be impossible for it to match that of the 2003 and 2004 Patriots at 2 losses.
Human tendency is to inflate the achievements of the past while downplaying the achievements of the present. For example, we may think back to January 2005, remember that dominating 20-3 win over the Colts in the dusk snow of the Razor, and say "the 2006 Patriots haven't been able to do that." This game, along with other exciting playoff wins, is played on a win-or-go-home stage where these achievements are most remembered.
Lost in the past are games such as the shootout win against the Bengals, or the loss in Miami to a team with the exact opposite record as the Pats, or a humiliating shutout loss in Buffalo. They're forgotten when we recall the past. However, when similar situations occur in the present, such as a shootout win against the Lions, or a humiliating shutout loss in Miami, these performances are scrutinized. Observations of the game spawn dire predictions and "this isn't the same team as 2003/4" statements. Human nature.
I'm never a fan of putting a "label" on a team, such as "Super Bowl caliber" or "quality opponent." These are made purely out of personal satisfaction with a particular team or opponent.
So when we take a statistical approach to see where these teams actually stack up against each other, even I get caught up in personal, rather pointless evaluations. However, the whole concept of stats and rankings places these 3 teams (2006, 2004, 2003) on equal footing, and in comparison to the competition they face (i.e. rankings) on the road to a championship.
Without droning on any further, here is my rebuttal to those that believe the 2006 offense is anemic and can't hold a candle to the "infallible" offenses of 2003 and 2004: (this was posted in another thread)
2006 offense:
Passing yards/game: 14th (most)
Passing TDs: 9th (most)
INTs: 11th (least)
Sacks: 11th (least)
Rushing yards/game: 13th (most)
Rushing TDs: 5th (most)
Scoring offense: 9th (best)
Offensive time of possession: 7th (best)
Total offensive yards/game: 13th (most)
2004 offense:
Passing yards/game: 11th (most)
Passing TDs: 6th (most)
INTs: 12th (least)
Sacks: 5th (least)
Rushing yards/game: 7th (most)
Rushing TDs: 9th (most)
Scoring offense: 4th (best)
Offensive time of possession: 7th (best)
Total offensive yards/game: 7th (most)
2003 offense:
Passing yards/game: 9th (most)
Passing TDs: 12th (most)
INTs: 6th (least)
Sacks: 14th (least)
Rushing yards/game: 27th (most)
Rushing TDs: 25th (most)
Scoring offense: 12th (best)
Offensive time of possession: 11th (best)
Total offensive yards/game: 17th (most)
...
Rankings:
Best to worst by rankings:
Passing yards/game: 2003, 2004, 2006
Passing TDs: 2004, 2006, 2003
INTs: 2003, 2006, 2004
Sacks: 2004, 2006, 2003
Rushing yards/game: 2004, 2006, 2003
Rushing TDs: 2006, 2004, 2003
Scoring offense: 2004, 2006, 2003
Offensive time of possession: 2004/6 tie, 2003
Total offensive yards/game: 2004, 2006, 2003
2004: 6 first place, 2 second place, 1 third place
2006: 2 first place, 6 second place, 1 third place
2003: 2 first place, 0 second place, 7 third place
The 2006 offense is worse than a Super Bowl winning team, yet better than a Super Bowl winning team.
Therefore, no one can say this isn't a "Super Bowl caliber" offense.
...
2006 Defense:
3rd down conversion percentage: 11th (best)
4th down conversion percentage: 4th (best)
Defensive time of possession: 7th (least)
Passing yards/game: 13th (least)
Passing TDs: 1st (least)
INTs: 3rd (most)
Sacks: 8th (most)
Rushing yards/game: 4th (least)
Rushing TDs: 6th (least)
Points/game: 2nd (least)
Total defensive yards/game: 6th (least)
2004 Defense:
3rd down conversion percentage: 21th (best)
4th down conversion percentage: 14th (best)
Defensive time of possession: 7th (least)
Passing yards/game: 17th (least)
Passing TDs: 9th (least)
INTs: 7th (most)
Sacks: 4th (most)
Rushing yards/game: 6th (least)
Rushing TDs: 8th (least)
Points/game: 2nd (least)
Total defensive yards/game: 9th (least)
2003 Defense:
3rd down conversion percentage: 7th (best)
4th down conversion percentage: 7th (best)
Defensive time of possession: 11th (least)
Passing yards/game: 15th (least)
Passing TDs: 1st (least)
INTs: 1st (most)
Sacks: 6th (most)
Rushing yards/game: 4th (least)
Rushing TDs: 7th (least)
Points/game: 1st (least)
Total defensive yards/game: 7th (least)
Rankings:
Best to worst by rankings:
3rd down conversion percentage: 2003, 2006, 2004
4th down conversion percentage: 2006, 2003, 2004
Defensive time of possession: 2004/6 tie, 2003
Passing yards/game: 2006, 2003, 2004
Passing TDs: 2003/6 tie, 2004
INTs: 2003, 2006, 2004
Sacks: 2004, 2003, 2006
Rushing yards/game: 2003/6 tie, 2004
Rushing TDs: 2006, 2003, 2004
Points/game: 2003, 2004/6 tie
Total defensive yards/game: 2006, 2003, 2004
2006: 7 first place, 3 second place, 1 third place
2003: 5 first place, 5 second place, 1 third place
2004: 2 first place, 1 second place, 8 third place
The 2006 defense is better than that of two Super Bowl winning teams.
...
Total Rankings:
2006: 9 first place, 9 second place, 2 third place
2004: 8 first place, 3 second place, 9 third place
2003: 7 first place, 5 second place, 8 third place
...
Take it for what it's worth, as the 2003 and 2004 teams still hold better records, but statistically the 2006 Patriots hold a combined advantage over the 2003 and 2004 teams in 20 important categories.
We'll let January and February decide if the 2006 Patriots truly match up against their Lombardi-hoisting predecessors. If so, this 2006 team would be, by the statistical categories listed above, the best of the Super Bowl winning teams.