2004 team would have beaten 2007 any day of the week

[BradyFTW!]

The hypothetical thread made me think about this again. I dont worry about the 19-0 loss because that team wasnt as good as the 2004 team anyway. A fluke loss on monday night in Miami and the loss to an excellent Steelers team in Pittsburgh without Corey Dillon after winning 21 straight wins and due for a loss was all that seperated that team from perfection. This was the most dominant Patriots team, it didnt rely solely on Brady throwing for 400 yards, it had the best one season running back we ever had, and that postseason was epic. The signature game of the dynasty, beating the Colts 20-3. Then destroying the top defensive team in football in Pittsburgh. Then beating a really good Eagles team. 2004 they were everything i could ever ask for in a football team, talented, full of heart, clutch. The greatest Patriots team ever.

Are they hypothetically playing under pre-2005 or post-2004 "points of emphasis"? Because if they're playing with the post-2004 rules, the 2007 team would win easily.

 

[BradyFTW!]

2007 team on the subject.

People underestimate how well rounded that 2007 team was. Especially while we had a healthy RB group before Morris went down.

The fact that we clearly match up horribly with the New York Giants should not undermine what a dominant squad that team was.

I still think that Colvin's injury is criminally underrated by people who talk down the 2007 team. When he was healthy, they were as close to unbeatable as we're likely to ever see.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I think it's more simple than that: Morris getting hurt. Time of possession and plays per game went down, put more long term pressure on the D.

I'll take 2007 under 2007 rules, and 2004 under 2004 rules.

OK but then by your logic the 2004 team gets Ty Law & Ty Poole back at starting CBs and Asante and Gay downshift into the nickel and dime assignments. Does the 04 team get Ben Watson too?

Can't go by injuries and the woulda-couldas. Both teams were great.

 

[MP-Logick]

Let's be honest, this argument isn't based off anything other than "the 2004 team won the Super Bowl and the 2007 team didn't so obviously the 2004 team had some intrinsic value that the 2007 team lacked." It's usually Red Sox beat writers that come up with stupid stuff like this.

Of course the 2004 team could have beaten the 2007 team. More likely with both teams at full health they probably wouldn't have.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Let's be honest, this argument isn't based off anything other than "the 2004 team won the Super Bowl and the 2007 team didn't so obviously the 2004 team had some intrinsic value that the 2007 team lacked." It's usually Red Sox beat writers that come up with stupid stuff like this.

Of course the 2004 team could have beaten the 2007 team. More likely with both teams at full health they probably wouldn't have.

The answer is yes. The more compelling question is out of 10 games, how many times does the 01 team beat the 04 or 07 teams. 3 times maybe?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The harsh reality is that the 07 team is probably the best football team we will ever see, and almost certainly the best Patriots team. It is harsh because the team failed to win the big game, a game they easily could have won if they'd played even close to their potential. But, they lost.

I'd still argue that the '07 team was the best team of all-time. There's a difference between how good a team is and how accomplished a team is. The '07 team certainly did not accomplish more than any other NFL team, but the question is, if Vegas were to put up odds on a neutral field, theoretically, would any team be favored to beat them? I highly doubt it. I believe that's how you would determine the "best" team of all-time, although maybe not the "greatest" or "most accomplished". It's semantics.

There's always luck involved with any team. That's why, even the juggernauts we've seen have less than a 50% chance, and at best, maybe a 30% chance, to win the Super Bowl, even though they might be hands down the best team in the league. The fact is that there are always two teams on the field, one will win, the other will lose. This isn't basketball, baseball, or hockey, and you don't get to come back from a loss.

 

[Kontradiction]

Are they hypothetically playing under pre-2005 or post-2004 "points of emphasis"? Because if they're playing with the post-2004 rules, the 2007 team would win easily.

The 2004 team played under those rules as well. And I think that they would have given the '07 squad an EPIC run for their money. But I would have the '07 squad winning 7 games if the two teams played 10 straight.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Let's be honest, this argument isn't based off anything other than "the 2004 team won the Super Bowl and the 2007 team didn't so obviously the 2004 team had some intrinsic value that the 2007 team lacked." .

It's not just that, the 2004 team was a wrecking machine in the playoffs and beat 3 elite teams, 2 of those wins were very convincing. Played their best football when it mattered. The 2007 team faced a way lighter road to a championship: Mediocre Jacksonville, injury depleted Chargers, and a 10-6 team and still was not that convincing in either win, then ultimately losing. The 2004 team had that killer instinct I haven't seen in any other Patriot team, even the '03 team wasn't as fierce IMO.

Let's not forget just how good that 2004 team was. 1 of the 2 losses was without Dilllon/Branch, plus that's the game Law suddenly goes down and we didn't have any answers. Once the secondary moved on and solidified the team was damn near unstoppable. The only other loss was a fluke in Miami where we got a bit careless with a late double digit lead. That team could've easily been 18-1 too and who knows if we weren't depleted for Pittsburgh.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

The 2004 team played under those rules as well. And I think that they would have given the '07 squad an EPIC run for their money. But I would have the '07 squad winning 7 games if the two teams played 10 straight.

Yes, this is a common misconception. I often see it when people talk about the 20-3 beatdown in the divisional round thinking it was before the rule change, then after that the Colts started to have our number. Another thing is I believe Richard Seymour didn't play in this game or the AFCC in Pittsburgh which make it all the more amazing.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

what a thread...

 

[Joker]

yeah???...so???...you wanna make somethin' outa it??...my auntie can beat your grandma...any day of the week and twice on April..NOW whaddya got to say???

 

[RobertWeathers]

It's not just that, the 2004 team was a wrecking machine in the playoffs and beat 3 elite teams, 2 of those wins were very convincing. Played their best football when it mattered. The 2007 team faced a way lighter road to a championship: Mediocre Jacksonville, injury depleted Chargers, and a 10-6 team and still was not that convincing in either win, then ultimately losing. The 2004 team had that killer instinct I haven't seen in any other Patriot team, even the '03 team wasn't as fierce IMO.

Let's not forget just how good that 2004 team was. 1 of the 2 losses was without Dilllon/Branch, plus that's the game Law suddenly goes down and we didn't have any answers. Once the secondary moved on and solidified the team was damn near unstoppable. The only other loss was a fluke in Miami where we got a bit careless with a late double digit lead. That team could've easily been 18-1 too and who knows if we weren't depleted for Pittsburgh.

Lets not be too hard on the 07 schedule. Before the SB they beat two "bye" teams in DAL and Indy on the road and beat JAX, Pitt, and the SFCCG finalist in SD twice.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Lets not be too hard on the 07 schedule. Before the SB they beat two "bye" teams in DAL and Indy on the road and beat JAX, Pitt, and the SFCCG finalist in SD twice.

I was talking about the playoff schedule. The regular season schedule, yes it was as hard a schedule as we've had. And in the regular season it's no contest who the better team was. But I'm referring to how the teams played when everything was on the line.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I was talking about the playoff schedule. The regular season schedule, yes it was as hard a schedule as we've had. And in the regular season it's no contest who the better team was. But I'm referring to how the teams played when everything was on the line.

Ok but SD beating Indy on the road and JAX beating Pitt on the road were no small tasks. You could argue that was almost as difficult as beating a soft Indy in the snow at home and vs a rookie QB in the biggest game of his life vs a team and the height of its dynasty.

 

[sly24]

It's not just that, the 2004 team was a wrecking machine in the playoffs and beat 3 elite teams, 2 of those wins were very convincing. Played their best football when it mattered. The 2007 team faced a way lighter road to a championship: Mediocre Jacksonville, injury depleted Chargers, and a 10-6 team and still was not that convincing in either win, then ultimately losing. The 2004 team had that killer instinct I haven't seen in any other Patriot team, even the '03 team wasn't as fierce IMO.

Let's not forget just how good that 2004 team was. 1 of the 2 losses was without Dilllon/Branch, plus that's the game Law suddenly goes down and we didn't have any answers. Once the secondary moved on and solidified the team was damn near unstoppable. The only other loss was a fluke in Miami where we got a bit careless with a late double digit lead. That team could've easily been 18-1 too and who knows if we weren't depleted for Pittsburgh.

I'd still say that if the 07 team had lost 1 game in the regular season, they probably would have won the SB. They went all out during the final weeks of the season to stay undefeated with all that pressure so they basically ran out of gas in the playoffs. They made it to the SB but let's be honest, the offense played very average against JAC and SD. With 1 loss and the pressure gone, I think they win the SB.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

It's all a matter of opinion, and so I will give mine.

We have had 5 SB teams in 11 years, and in terms of talent and "normal" level of play, my felling is that the best, 3d best, and 5th best won their last game (2004, 2003, 2001);

while the 2nd best and 4th best lost their last game (2007, 2011)

All the wins were close enough to became losses with a few more bad beaks, and both of the losses were certainly close enough to become wins, without a bad break or two.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Ok but SD beating Indy on the road and JAX beating Pitt on the road were no small tasks. You could argue that was almost as difficult as Indy in the snow and vs a rookie QB in the biggest game of his life vs a team and the height of its dynasty.

SD had the Colts number for a while, while we had SD's number. It was a fortunate chain of matchups for us helped even more by their injuries. Ben was a rookie but he was something like 12-0 as a starter at that point, his team was 16-1. 2004 Colts >>>> 2007 Jaguars, not even close.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I'd still say that if the 07 team had lost 1 game in the regular season, they probably would have won the SB. They went all out during the final weeks of the season to stay undefeated with all that pressure so they basically ran out of gas in the playoffs. They made it to the SB but let's be honest, the offense played very average against JAC and SD. With 1 loss and the pressure gone, I think they win the SB.

Piloi and Dimitroff said as much. However I think that it had a lot more to do with defenses playing Moss over the top and crowding WW in the middle of the field. Thats another reason why LoMo had two 100yd games.

If the Giants had a "just-ok" pass rush they win SB 42.

 

[BaltimorePatsFan]

The 2007 defense was never at a point where they were "extremely vulnerable." We wouldn't have made it to the SB if it weren't for the defense winning the game against San Diego.

And if the last two years are any indication, having a great offense doesn't magically help your defense get ranked 4th in the league.

People have a grudge against that defense because of the last drive of the SB, where we lost because of a string of semi-miraculous plays for the Giants.

vs. Philly: Frickin' Aj feeley throws for 345 yards and 3 TDs and the Pats escape with a last minute INT

vs. Baltimore: Willis McGahee racks up 138 rushing yards and the Pats win only thanks to idiotic mistakes by the Baltimore D in the last minute (Rexy's timeout and penalties)

vs. NYG (week 17): Eli Manning throws 4 TDs and the Pats barely win by 3

vs. Jax: Garrard goes 22/32 and the Pats pull away thanks to TB's magic night

The 07 Pats easily could have dropped any/all of these games and won thanks to Brady and the offense, and yes, in each game the defense was indeed "extremely vulnerable." The D did play well against San Diego, but then again that was a Chargers team that lost LT after the first drive and was led by Philip Rivers and his torn ACL.

 

[RobertWeathers]

SD had the Colts number for a while, while we had SD's number. It was a fortunate chain of matchups for us helped even more by their injuries. Ben was a rookie but he was something like 12-0 as a starter at that point, his team was 16-1. 2004 Colts >>>> 2007 Jaguars, not even close.

Go back to 2004. Indy was still a sissy team with zero playoff toughness and Pitt barely beat NYJ at home in the divisional. Roeth was brutal.

07 JAX played the Pats TOUGH in the div and beat Pitt on the road the prior week.

07 SD beats the defending SB champ on the road with Michael Turner filling in. SD was not a pushover.