2006 statistical comparison to 2003/4

[Oswlek]

Again:

In four quarters of football, the New England Patriots offense never even got in long field goal range against the Miami Dolphins.

The Pats offense never even threatened to score a point in a December football game. Yes, I expect good defenses to hold the score down. But, I have seen very few games in which an offense never even sniffs a point. Usually, when that happens, it's because the offense is truly wretched.

But, be my guest. Enjoy all the feel-good talk generated by a thrashing of the weak sisters of the poor on Sunday. Let's just hope the Pats can manage go back into the tournament because they really are not playing good football.

The problem is inconsistency more than anything. NE is just as likely to to drive up and down the field against a great D (like Chicago) as they are to totally fizzle out against a very good D (Miami). If it is true that Miami had some help with NE's line calls, than that performance is not a good indicator of how well similar defenses will do.

The game against Jax is going to go a long way to enlightening us.

 

[zippo59]

Again:

In four quarters of football, the New England Patriots offense never even got in long field goal range against the Miami Dolphins.

The Pats offense never even threatened to score a point in a December football game. Yes, I expect good defenses to hold the score down. But, I have seen very few games in which an offense never even sniffs a point. Usually, when that happens, it's because the offense is truly wretched.

But, be my guest. Enjoy all the feel-good talk generated by a thrashing of the weak sisters of the poor on Sunday. Let's just hope the Pats can manage go back into the tournament because they really are not playing good football.

I don't want to sound like a broken record but really conventional wisdom goes out the window when the team plays the Dolphins. Brady has only won two games in Miami in his career and he struggled in both. Even in the games at home he usually struggles, and this is on teams that went on to win the Superbowl. I am not saying this offense doesn't have problems, nor am I trying to excuse the shutout, but this offense looking that bad against the Dolphins is not the same as it looking bad against just about every other defense in the league.

Also take into context the game itself. Some people are bringing up the fact that the Pats offense didn't shred the Texans defense, but maybe that wasn't the intention. For just about the entire game the offense got really short fields, and their defense wasn't giving up anything, so then why would they be super aggressive and open up the playbook? Instead they remained conservative, used screens, ran the ball, and used dink and dunk passes, to the tune of 33 points. What I mean is that there are different ways to play offense, and the best method varies from game to game. This game called for exactly what the Patriots did.

If you want to see an example of the offense being successful against a good defense look at the Bears game. The offense moved the ball pretty easily but then would committ preventable turnovers.

 

[Miguel]

Great post. It offers a convincing case that this year's team is very, very good. The question remains, though, why were there some important games where we hardly seemed competitive, such as our losses to Denver, the Colts, and Miami? At any rate, Pats1 has used stats to demonstrate this team really has a shot of getting into the SB, especially if it can get a little healthier. Go Pats!

I question whether a very,very good team would have played as many important games where it did not seem competitive.

 

[JR4]

Do we have a naysayer here? That is fine...don't let the feacts get in the way of an argument...but...but but???
GREAT POST Pats1....I think THAt perspectiove is alwaus ahead of things..and when Felger and Vorges and rge like pollute the airwaves with negativity...

Taking a phrase out of context to make a point is sometimes called pretext.
but ... but .... but ......???

 

[zippo59]

I question whether a very,very good team would have played as many important games where it did not seem competitive.

Of all the losses, only the Miami game was not competetive. Against the Jets, Colts, and Broncos, as bad as they played they still had shots to close the gap near the end. Of course they didn't, which is what really matters, but I still think it is something.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Therefore, no one can say this isn't a "Super Bowl caliber" offense.

Wow - a lot of work went into your post, and you've done a good job illustrating the fallacy of statistics.

You might want to compare the 2006 offense with 2002 as well - because even though that was one of Brady's better statistical years they weren't a Super Bowl caliber team.... of course that would undermine your premise that this is a Super Bowl caliber offense.

There are no stats that can change what everyone has observed with their own two eyes about the offense to date

They've committed what would be a seasons worth of turnovers in a handful of games. The offense has not been consistent and not one that can be expected to go deep in the playoffs. Tom Brady himself admits this.

The biggest difference is somewhat intangible. The 2003/2004 teams knew how to win. When the game was on the line and they absolutely needed a catch or first down to move the ball into scoring position, they nearly always did without fail.

We've seen more than a few last minute drives that had the potential to tie or win a game fall short this year. That happens - but in past years, the offense had a way of making things happen. That's not been there.

The lack of a deep game has allowed Safeties to come up to the line of scrimmage and put a ton of pressure on Brady. In turn they've had to keep an extra TE in to block, further limiting the offense, and in a shortened field, there's less separation for all receivers.

That's just the tip of the iceberg - common sense doesn't require statistics - and common sense tells us that this offense has not played at a SB level.

The defense, when healthy, absolutely has - so we've got that going for us - and if the offense can simply stop making mistakes, we can make the playoffs and contend for the SB again.

But let's not kid ourselves by hiding behind the type of statistics that could likely prove we should have won the 2002 Super Bowl as well.

 

[BradyManny]

Awesome posts as usual, Pats1, very good reads.

 

[Miguel]

But let's not kid ourselves by hiding behind the type of statistics that could likely prove we should have won the 2002 Super Bowl as well.

I wish that I said that.

 

[pats1]

Here's my rebuttal to your rebuttal. In four quarters of football, the New England Patriots offense never even got in long field goal range against the Miami Dolphins.

Look, I don't like it any better than anyone else. But, the simple fact of the matter is that any good defense can shut this year's Patriots' offense down cold.

The 2003 and 2004 teams had their lapses too, so don't make it out like they didn't.

Looking at such a small sample - just one game in Miami - is foolish.

 

[pats1]

I like stats as much as anyone on this board but according to my eyeball test this team is not as good as the 2003/2004 teams.

The 2003 team went 7-0 against teams that ended up with +.500 records. Heck, that team went 7-0 against teams that ended up with at least 10 wins. The 2004 team went 7-1 against teams that ended up with +.500 records. That 2004 team went 3-1 against teams that ended up with at least 10 wins.

If the 2006 team is as good as the 2003/2004 teams, then why does the 2006 team trail those teams in the most important stat - wins??

The 2006 team has as many regular season losses as did the 2003/2004 teams combined.

The 2001 team beat 1 team with a winning record.

 

[pats1]

Again:

In four quarters of football, the New England Patriots offense never even got in long field goal range against the Miami Dolphins.

The Pats offense never even threatened to score a point in a December football game. Yes, I expect good defenses to hold the score down. But, I have seen very few games in which an offense never even sniffs a point. Usually, when that happens, it's because the offense is truly wretched.

But, be my guest. Enjoy all the feel-good talk generated by a thrashing of the weak sisters of the poor on Sunday. Let's just hope the Pats can manage go back into the tournament because they really are not playing good football.

And so when the Pats win in January I assume you'll still be posting and dwelling on one particular loss?

 

[Miguel]

The 2001 team beat 1 team with a winning record.

How does that answer my question:
"If the 2006 team is as good as the 2003/2004 teams, then why does the 2006 team trail those teams in the most important stat - wins??

 

[pats1]

Of all the losses, only the Miami game was not competetive. Against the Jets, Colts, and Broncos, as bad as they played they still had shots to close the gap near the end. Of course they didn't, which is what really matters, but I still think it is something.

Right on. That Brady INT after Adam missed the kick still haunts me. I really thought the Pats were going to win that one.

 

[RayClay]

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.

Thanks Pats1. You'd think that would settle it. Any bets?

 

[pats1]

How does that answer my question:
"If the 2006 team is as good as the 2003/2004 teams, then why does the 2006 team trail those teams in the most important stat - wins??

I wish I could drag the strength of schedule/strength of victory numbers out. That would be an interesting comparison.

But your issue is valid, and one I certainly thought about. It's down to personal perception again:

If a 12-4 team wins a Super Bowl and is better statistically than a 14-2 team that wins a Super Bowl, which team is better?

I honestly don't know. Does it matter? No, not really. My whole intention in this post was to bring some sense and perspective back to the board.

 

[Miguel]

The 2001 team beat 1 team with a winning record.

That's incorrect.
The 2001 team beat the 11-5 Dolphins and the 10-6 Jets.

 

[BelichickFan]

How does that answer my question:
"If the 2006 team is as good as the 2003/2004 teams, then why does the 2006 team trail those teams in the most important stat - wins??

Looking at the losses :

Denver and Miami, they're just tough matchups for us, they always have been even in the SB winning years.

NYJ and Colts - largely turnovers. We mostly outplayed the Jets but had a couple of critical turnovers. The Colts game was fairly even, despite losing Harrison on the 3rd defensive play, but, again, turnovers.

I guess you could say that some of Brady's bad throws are due to general inefficiency of the offense, although I wouldn't, - or he may have just made a few extra bad throws like the high on to Faulk that ended the Colts game. Sometimes it really is just a bounce here or there. The Gabriel fumble in the Jets game, the Brady INT in the Colts game - maybe we would only have two losses.

 

[pats1]

That's incorrect.
The 2001 team beat the 11-5 Dolphins and the 10-6 Jets.

Yeah, that's what happens when I try to recall a month-old argument.

But it still doesn't support the case (not necessarily yours) that the Pats' struggles against 'winning' teams this year will translate to an early exit.

 

[hwc]

NYJ and Colts - largely turnovers.

Well, duh!

Those are the hallmarks of a bad offense. Turnovers, false start penalties, dropped passes.

I don't believe that the Pats have been competitive in any of their four losses.

I am as big a Pats fan as anyone here. I drink the Kool-Aid. But, fourteen games into the seaon, the offense is what it is -- not very good.

If the Pats can get a lead against a defense that has trouble stopping the run, the Pats can win games. Against a physical, run-stopping defense on a playoff caliber team, it is going to be a challenge. The passing game is just not there, right now. I didn't see anything in Houston game to suggest otherwise, although not turning the ball over helped.

 

[pats1]

Well, duh!

Those are the hallmarks of a bad offense. Turnovers, false start penalties, dropped passes.

I don't believe that the Pats have been competitive in any of their four losses.

Then I assume you didn't watch the Colts game?

I am as big a Pats fan as anyone here. I drink the Kool-Aid. But, fourteen games into the seaon, the offense is what it is -- not very good.

So then by your standards, the 2003 offense was horrible.

If the Pats can get a lead against a defense that has trouble stopping the run, the Pats can win games. Against a physical, run-stopping defense on a playoff caliber team, it is going to be a challenge. The passing game is just not there, right now. I didn't see anything in Houston game to suggest otherwise, although not turning the ball over helped.

You've named 1 of the ONLY TWO major statistical categories the 2006 Pats trail both the 2003 and 2004 teams in: passing yards/game. The other would be sacks. Way to dwell on the negatives.

The 2003 team trails both the 2004/6 teams in EIGHT major statistical categories.

The 2004 team trails both the 2003/6 teams in NINE major statistical categories.

(Of course, if the 2006 team trails the 2003/4 teams in the most important category - championships - then this is all a moot point)