The 2003 Patriots Should Be The Blueprint For The End Of The Tom Brady Era

[PatsFans.com Article]

The 2003 Patriots Should Be The Blueprint For The End Of The Tom Brady Era
By: Russ Goldman

Check out my thoughts on how much can be learned from the 2003 Patriots that can be used this season and beyond....

CLICK HERE TO READ THIS STORY​

 

[Shockt327]

Many fans and media members point to the 2004 Patriots as the best ever, but I still disagree, as the 2003 team offered more than just the best talent to win a Super Bowl.

Hmmm. This kind of caught my eye because I can't help but think most people would point to the 07 team; rings or not. Personally, I liked the '04 team as the best. I wonder what others think. Maybe a poll is needed.

 

[Russyracuse]

Many fans and media members point to the 2004 Patriots as the best ever, but I still disagree, as the 2003 team offered more than just the best talent to win a Super Bowl.

Hmmm. This kind of caught my eye because I can't help but think most people would point to the 07 team; rings or not. Personally, I liked the '04 team as the best. I wonder what others think. Maybe a poll is needed.

The 2004 team were probably the most talented but if you look at the entire picture with how the 2003 team won games in different ways and got contributions from the entire roster, I personally look at this team.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Personally, I'd take the '04 team. Dillon was just too good.

 

[Shockt327]

The 2004 team were probably the most talented but if you look at the entire picture with how the 2003 team won games in different ways and got contributions from the entire roster, I personally look at this team.

wait, wouldn't it be the 07 team that was the most talented? That was the basis for my confusion.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I'd gladly take 2003 or 2004, not just the talent on D but those teams were more resilient and mentally tougher than any other we've had. Think of all the injuries we overcame those years. In 2004 we didn't have Law, Seymour, Poole, and a few others for the AFC playoffs yet we dominated the Colts and Steelers - 2 very good teams. Nowadays we lose one player and supposedly that's the reason we lost the last couple seasons. Or in 2007 Brady's limited mobility, Kevin Faulk, and Neal were supposedly our downfall. I don't wanna hear it, there's a reason we overcame injuries then and can't do it now.

 

[NEPettyOfficer72]

I'd gladly take 2003 or 2004, not just the talent on D but those teams were more resilient and mentally tougher than any other we've had. Think of all the injuries we overcame those years. In 2004 we didn't have Law, Seymour, Poole, and a few others for the AFC playoffs yet we dominated the Colts and Steelers - 2 very good teams. Nowadays we lose one player and supposedly that's the reason we lost the last couple seasons. Or in 2007 Brady's limited mobility, Kevin Faulk, and Neal were supposedly our downfall. I don't wanna hear it, there's a reason we overcame injuries then and can't do it now.

In 2007, it wasn't Tom Brady or Kevin Faulk, or Stephen Neal. It was the in effectiveness of Randy Moss not being able to do what Wes does in regards to routes, and Wes not being able to do what Randy does as well. They knew that taking away Moss deep, and Wes underneath would neutralize the offense being that we couldn't run the ball effectively against a run tough team and that their front four were skilled and explosive enough to attack up front. See back in the day, Givens could do what Brown does, Brown could do what Branch did, Branch could play Patten's role and Patten could play Given's role and vice versa. All of our receivers could do everything. And defensively, it was also Ellis Hobbs inability to cover a receiver about a foot taller than him who just happened to be on fire that year. It was a lot of things. But it wasn't Brady, Faulk or Neal.

 

[NEPettyOfficer72]

wait, wouldn't it be the 07 team that was the most talented? That was the basis for my confusion.

Yes, you are confused my friend..



Tom Brady - young
Antoine Smith - rejuvenated that year and healthy
Kevin Faulk
Larry Centers - still effective
Troy Brown - PRIME - Veteran experience
Deion Branch - PRIME and young
David Givens - Super clutch and tough
David Patten
Christian Fauria - smart TE
Daniel Graham - solid blocker
Damien Woody
Joe Andruzzi
Matt Light
Dan Koppen
Ty Law
Rodney Harrison
Richard Seymour
Tedy Bruschi
Mike Vrabel
Willie McGinest
Roosevelt Colvin
Matt Chatham
Tully Banta-Cain
Asante Samuel
Tyrone Poole
Ted Johnson
Roman Phifer
Ted Washington
Ty Warren
Jarvis Green
Bobby Hamilton

Is some of the best talent and depth you'll EVER see on one team I guarantee.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

I'm going 2004. It seemed that any part of the team could dominate and take over a game. Offense, Defense, special teams. They were a complete team and a team that believed in each other and operated as a whole unit.

 

[Oswlek]

2004 was without a doubt the greatest Patriots team of all time. I have idea how anyone would even debate this. They were good enough to lose both starting CBs and their #1 WR for most the year as well as one of the best DL in the league for most of the playoffs and still be completely dominant.

Most fans don't realize this, but the 2004 squad actually outscored the 2007 over their final 9 games (including the playoffs) and scored less than a single ppg over their final 6 regular season games less than 2007. That Moss offense was otherworldly for 10 games, from then on they were simply very good.

As for 2003, they weren't even close to as good as 2004. Just look at the scoring margin. 2004 may have allowed 1.4 ppg more than 2003, but they scored nearly a touchdown more per game.

2003 was a hell of a ride, but 2004 was a beatdown. No question which would win the majority of the time.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

In 2007, it wasn't Tom Brady or Kevin Faulk, or Stephen Neal. It was the in effectiveness of Randy Moss not being able to do what Wes does in regards to routes, and Wes not being able to do what Randy does as well. They knew that taking away Moss deep, and Wes underneath would neutralize the offense being that we couldn't run the ball effectively against a run tough team and that their front four were skilled and explosive enough to attack up front. See back in the day, Givens could do what Brown does, Brown could do what Branch did, Branch could play Patten's role and Patten could play Given's role and vice versa. All of our receivers could do everything. And defensively, it was also Ellis Hobbs inability to cover a receiver about a foot taller than him who just happened to be on fire that year. It was a lot of things. But it wasn't Brady, Faulk or Neal.

I think you may have mistaken my point because you're making it for me My point was that injuries are not an excuse for our recent playoff shortcomings. Definitely agree with what you just wrote, that among other reasons/team deficiencies are the true reasons we haven't gotten it done when it counts.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

2004 was without a doubt the greatest Patriots team of all time. I have idea how anyone would even debate this. They were good enough to lose both starting CBs and their #1 WR for most the year as well as one of the best DL in the league for most of the playoffs and still be completely dominant.

Most fans don't realize this, but the 2004 squad actually outscored the 2007 over their final 9 games (including the playoffs) and scored less than a single ppg over their final 6 regular season games less than 2007. That Moss offense was otherworldly for 10 games, from then on they were simply very good.

As for 2003, they weren't even close to as good as 2004. Just look at the scoring margin. 2004 may have allowed 1.4 ppg more than 2003, but they scored nearly a touchdown more per game.

2003 was a hell of a ride, but 2004 was a beatdown. No question which would win the majority of the time.

Yep, the first half of 2007 definitely sways alot of opinions (understandably) but I'll take the team that finishes strong and plays its best when it matters. Aside from the 4th quarter collapse in Miami that team was damn impressive (perfect record-wise in fact) after the Pittsburgh loss until they raised the lombardi.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Yes, you are confused my friend..



Tom Brady - young
Antoine Smith - rejuvenated that year and healthy
Kevin Faulk
Larry Centers - still effective
Troy Brown - PRIME - Veteran experience
Deion Branch - PRIME and young
David Givens - Super clutch and tough
David Patten
Christian Fauria - smart TE
Daniel Graham - solid blocker
Damien Woody
Joe Andruzzi
Matt Light
Dan Koppen
Ty Law
Rodney Harrison
Richard Seymour
Tedy Bruschi
Mike Vrabel
Willie McGinest
Roosevelt Colvin
Matt Chatham
Tully Banta-Cain
Asante Samuel
Tyrone Poole
Ted Johnson
Roman Phifer
Ted Washington
Ty Warren
Jarvis Green
Bobby Hamilton

Is some of the best talent and depth you'll EVER see on one team I guarantee.

Still suggests that the '04 team was better, IMO. Swap out Washington for a rookie Wilfork, add Dillon to the mix, and Colvin actually played a significant role after missing almost all of 2003 with a hip injury. They had injuries at CB, but 2004 was when Samuel stepped it up and became a starter, plus Gay put in a really solid rookie performance (and Brown turned out to be capable on defense). Ty Warren became a full-time starter in '04 after spending most of 2003 as a role player, as well.

Not a knock on the '03 team, but the 2004 squad was on a different level. They were as close to unbeatable, down the stretch, as we're likely to ever see. Usually, when a team is even close to that good, it's because they've had an incredible run of health. The Pats had injuries all over the place, and they were still just too good to be derailed.

Re: 2007- Seymour played that entire season on one leg, they got very little out of their tight ends, Maroney was serviceable but nothing that anybody was afraid of (not even in Dillon's league), Colvin getting IRed was a huge hit to their pass rush, and Bruschi and Harrison were both shells of their former selves. They were probably still better on offense than '04, just because Moss and Welker were so good, but they were also easier to shut down, down the stretch. Lack of playmaking talent at RB made it so that, even if they were better than the '04 offense, it wasn't by a mile.

Conversely, the '04 defense was orders of magnitude better than 2007's. If the 2004 defense, which featured Seymour, Colvin, Warren, Bruschi, Harrison, McGinest and Vrabel all at/near their primes, had been given the opportunity to play with that offense, they would have absolutely gone 19-0, and probably would have won the SB by upwards of two touchdowns.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I guess I'm dumb, but I don't see what the 2013 Pats have to do with the 2003 squad.

The 2013 team will be the youngest that BB has fielded. The 2003 team was a much older veteran group, edging close to one of George Allen's Over the Hill Gang teams.

The 2013 squad has more intrinsic talent and much more speed than the 2003 squad. The 2013 squad is lining up to have more depth as well.

The only thing the 2003 squad possessed is True Grit. I don't think you can infuse that in a very young squad. They learn it and get it, as they mature and the years go by.

,

 

[Off The Grid]

I think that many people get the wrong answer to this question because they're using faulty Metrics.

1 ~ The best Team isn't the one that scores the most Points.

2 ~ The best Team isn't the one that boasts the greatest Scoring Differential.

3 ~ And the best Team isn't the one that has the most "Talent" ~ whatever the Hell that is.

The best Team, I believe, is the one that plays the best after New Years Day ~ in the Games that count.

And that Team ~ despite an horrifically ravaged Secondary ~ was unquestionably the 2004 Team.

 

[Off The Grid]

And may I add, Gentlemen....?

"The 2003 Patriots Should Be The Blueprint For The End Of The Tom Brady Era" is an atrocious HeadLine.

"...For The Final Stage of the Tom Brady Era" ~ or 800 other versions of that ~ would've been far better.

 

[WhiZa]

Many fans and media members point to the 2004 Patriots as the best ever, but I still disagree, as the 2003 team offered more than just the best talent to win a Super Bowl.

Hmmm. This kind of caught my eye because I can't help but think most people would point to the 07 team; rings or not. Personally, I liked the '04 team as the best. I wonder what others think. Maybe a poll is needed.

A poll is not enough for this thought provoking question.

 

[patsfan-1982]

2004 was the best SB wining team but the best team was 2007 if not for a once in a life time play by a guy that was out of football last then a year later and some bad coaching by the pats they would have been the best sports team ever never mind best pats team and they are the only team to go 16-0 in the reg season and maybe the last

 

[BradyFTW!]

A poll is not enough for this thought provoking question.

Re: your sig... what are you getting at? You do realize that Price and Dobson had completely different college careers, as well as significantly different skill-sets and measurables... right? They're not even remotely comparable to each other, regardless of whether or not Dobson makes it in the NFL.

 

[WhiZa]

Re: your sig... what are you getting at? You do realize that Price and Dobson had completely different college careers, as well as significantly different skill-sets and measurables... right? They're not even remotely comparable to each other, regardless of whether or not Dobson makes it in the NFL.

I didn't follow the draft as closely this year as in past, but let's look at the numbers:
Price- Height: 6-1 Weight: 204 40: 4.40 - drafted round 3
Dobson- 6-3 Weight: 210 40(at pro day): 4.37 - drafted round 2

Last year of college stats:
Price- 56 for 784 5 TDs
Dobson- 57 for 679 3TDs

Both come from small schools. Both are known to go up and get the ball. They seem pretty comparable to me? Of course I want to see Dobson succeed, but I had to change my sig after I got bashed for the Rodney to Chung comparison