Who wins and why. 2007 Patriots vs 2004 Patriots.

[Lifer]

With thanks to Makewayhomer for the idea....

I honestly now think the 2004 team wins because of one thing.

Defense. Defense wins. And the 2004 Patriots played more consistantly on defense. The 2007 Patriots let teams, like in 2006, come right down the field.
The offense was great, but the defense, while improved this year, wasnt good enough and like last year gave up the drive the 2004 team would never have given up.

Remember how the 2004 team held the best offense in football to 3 points, scored 41 on the best defense, beat 3 teams with at least 13 wins in the playoffs, and played their best in the most important games.

the second half of this season it always felt like the Patriots were just holding on. the 2004 team got stronger as the season wore on. a fluke brain freeze cost that team a game in Miami. and they played a 15-1 team on the road without their RB and lost the other game. But they basically a dominant team in all phases of the game,

im not talking the whole year, just what those team were when they were a finished product at the end of the year.

2004 Patriots manhandle Eli Manning, Charlie Weis, Corey Dillon and a consistant solid Patriots offense put up over 20 points. Not thinking so much about SB 39 because i dont think the Patriots played their best that day, i say 2004 beats 2007 team 23-20

 

[makewayhomer]

Defense. Defense wins.

defense doesn't win, scoring more points than your opponent wins. and the 2007 Pats dominated their opposition to a far greater extent than the 2004 Pats did.

it's really not that close between these teams, it's just that 1) the 2007 Pats picked the wrong time to have their worst offensive game of the year 2) had about 4 bad breaks go against them on the final drive of the SB

if neither of those things happen, this is a pretty laughable debate...and even with those things it's really not close.

but as I said in the other thread, I'll take 17-2 with a SB win over 18-1 without a SB win any day. but that DOESN'T mean the 2004 team was better, it just means they achieved more. b/c of the nature of sports (upsets, bad bounces, referees, bad luck, miracle plays etc) the 2 things arent always the same


said another way: if you think the 2004 Pats were better than the 2007 Pats, then you better also think the 2007 Giants were better than the 2007 Pats

 

[Lifer]

defense doesn't win, scoring more points than your opponent wins. and the 2007 Pats dominated their opposition to a far greater extent than the 2004 Pats did.

it's really not that close between these teams, it's just that 1) the 2007 Pats picked the wrong time to have their worst offensive game of the year 2) had about 4 bad breaks go against them on the final drive of the SB

if neither of those things happen, this is a pretty laughable debate...and even with those things it's really not close.

but as I said in the other thread, I'll take 17-2 with a SB win over 18-1 without a SB win any day. but that DOESN'T mean the 2004 team was better, it just means they achieved more


said another way: if you think the 2004 Pats were better than the 2007 Pats, then you better also think the 2007 Giants were better than the 2007 Pats

good points, but consider this, isnt mental toughness, the ability to make that final stand, make that key play when it counts, a factor?

Were the 2001 Rams better than the 2001 Patriots? I dont think so. the 2001 Rams became unraveled when it counted. the 2001 Patriots made the plays champions make. The Raiders cried about the tuck call, but they collapsed after the call. this was always my arguement why the 1976 Patriots may not have been SO great. sure they got a bad call, but they were the ones that blew a 21-10 lead, had a bonehead offsides penalty on 3rd down when they could have clinched the game.

Yes, the Patriots were more talented than the Giants, but in the end the Giants made the plays. A great team doesnt give up a touchdown drive in that situation.

im just saying..consider that X factor, what makes a team a champion. And i hate to say it, but you could see this in the Patriots defense the entire second half of the season. the Patriots were NOT a dominating team down the stretch, not like they were in the beginning. They werent a team that beats the 2004 Colts 20-3 or the 2004 Steelers 41-20. They just werent.

So thats what i base it on, defensive toughness. Obviously you score more than the other team, but defensive minded teams beat offensive minded teams.

 

[patriotspride]

With thanks to Makewayhomer for the idea....

I honestly now think the 2004 team wins because of one thing.

Defense. Defense wins. And the 2004 Patriots played more consistantly on defense. The 2007 Patriots let teams, like in 2006, come right down the field.
The offense was great, but the defense, while improved this year, wasnt good enough and like last year gave up the drive the 2004 team would never have given up.

Remember how the 2004 team held the best offense in football to 3 points, scored 41 on the best defense, beat 3 teams with at least 13 wins in the playoffs, and played their best in the most important games.

the second half of this season it always felt like the Patriots were just holding on. the 2004 team got stronger as the season wore on. a fluke brain freeze cost that team a game in Miami. and they played a 15-1 team on the road without their RB and lost the other game. But they basically a dominant team in all phases of the game,

im not talking the whole year, just what those team were when they were a finished product at the end of the year.

2004 Patriots manhandle Eli Manning, Charlie Weis, Corey Dillon and a consistant solid Patriots offense put up over 20 points. Not thinking so much about SB 39 because i dont think the Patriots played their best that day, i say 2004 beats 2007 team 23-20

i agree with you.defense does win .the giants proved it and so did teams before them like the o1 pats the 91 giants against the bills .the list is long.

 

[jbb9s]

The single best playoff game this franchise ever had was at Pitt in 2004 postseason (technically 05).

 

[Lifer]

The single best playoff game this franchise ever had was at Pitt in 2004 postseason (technically 05).

yes, on the road against a 15-1 team they just smoked them. in fact, i will make myself feel better by watching that tape soon.

 

[makewayhomer]

good points, but consider this, isnt mental toughness, the ability to make that final stand, make that key play when it counts, a factor?

Were the 2001 Rams better than the 2001 Patriots? I dont think so. the 2001 Rams became unraveled when it counted. the 2001 Patriots made the plays champions make. The Raiders cried about the tuck call, but they collapsed after the call. this was always my arguement why the 1976 Patriots may not have been SO great. sure they got a bad call, but they were the ones that blew a 21-10 lead, had a bonehead offsides penalty on 3rd down when they could have clinched the game.

Yes, the Patriots were more talented than the Giants, but in the end the Giants made the plays. A great team doesnt give up a touchdown drive in that situation.

im just saying..consider that X factor, what makes a team a champion. And i hate to say it, but you could see this in the Patriots defense the entire second half of the season. the Patriots were NOT a dominating team down the stretch, not like they were in the beginning. They werent a team that beats the 2004 Colts 20-3 or the 2004 Steelers 41-20. They just werent.

So thats what i base it on, defensive toughness. Obviously you score more than the other team, but defensive minded teams beat offensive minded teams.

lifer: upsets happen. the best team doesn't always win. the rams were better than the pats in 01, just as the pats were better than the giants this year, the bears were better than the dolphins in 85, and broncos better than the giants in 98, etc etc etc

 

[sieglo]

If they play in game 1, the 2007 team wins. If they play in game 19, the 2004 team wins. That team had heart down the stretch.

 

[patsfaninpa]

I think the 03 team would have a better chance of beating the 07 team because of the secondary. 04 team started R.Gay and A.Samuel(before he really started to develop) in Super Bowl. And, T.Brown was our nickel. And, Earth, Wind and Fire even saw the field. They wouldn't have been able to handle this teams wr's. Now, Ty Law and T.Poole with Asante as a nickel. Gets more interesting.

 

[Xzibit23]

You guys are overreacting because of 1 loss. The reality is the 2007 Pats were the best Pats team in their history. Getting unlucky and having the Giants pull out a close victory against them doesnt suddenly make the 2004 Pats a better team.

 

[makewayhomer]

If they play in game 1, the 2007 team wins. If they play in game 19, the 2004 team wins. That team had heart down the stretch.

if Tyree doesn't make a miracle catch, people stop saying dumb stuff like this. "heart" has nothing to do with an opponent making a once in a lifetime miracle catch. heart has nothing to do with Asante not making that INT (who btw was a starter in 2004...did he have less "heart" back then?).

 

[makewayhomer]

Defense. Defense wins.

and btw:

the 2004 Pats gave up 51 points in the playoffs
the 2007 Pats gave up 49 points in the playoffs

 

[richpats]

and btw:

the 2004 Pats gave up 51 points in the playoffs
the 2007 Pats gave up 49 points in the playoffs

The 2004 Pats scored 85 points in the playoffs
The 2007 Pats scored 66 points in the playoffs (unbelievable)

 

[makewayhomer]

The 2004 Pats scored 85 points in the playoffs
The 2007 Pats scored 66 points in the playoffs (unbelievable)

hey, I already said that it was the offense that cost us the SB. the defense played fine in the playoffs.

I was just refuting that "defense wins championships" by stating that the 2004 team gave up more points in the playoffs than the 2007 team. out of the 6 games played, the 2004 team gave up the most and 2nd most points in individual games (as well the best individual game)

 

[Dino 6 Rings]

Objective Opinion.

2004 team would have beaten this year's team in a one and done game.

2004 team played Ball Control football, and the defense took away what the other team does best. So Bill B of 04 would have shut down the 07 passing game first and forced them to become one dimensional. The 04 offense would have methodically controlled the ball, had long sustained drives, attacking whatever weakness the 07 defense did have. The game would have been close, but also, your Clutch Kicker in 04 would have been the difference. 4th and 13 in 04, he kicks the FG.

That is my opinion. And Yes, as a Steelers fan I do think I know both of those teams pretty well. After all, they both spanked us.

 

[dhamz]

In good weather the 2007 wins easily. Too many weapons against a secondary that had a WR as a nickel back and a LB playing safety against passing formations.

In bad weather, it would probably be a different story.

 

[PatriotsRule99]

defense doesn't win, scoring more points than your opponent wins. and the 2007 Pats dominated their opposition to a far greater extent than the 2004 Pats did.

it's really not that close between these teams, it's just that 1) the 2007 Pats picked the wrong time to have their worst offensive game of the year 2) had about 4 bad breaks go against them on the final drive of the SB

if neither of those things happen, this is a pretty laughable debate...and even with those things it's really not close.

but as I said in the other thread, I'll take 17-2 with a SB win over 18-1 without a SB win any day. but that DOESN'T mean the 2004 team was better, it just means they achieved more. b/c of the nature of sports (upsets, bad bounces, referees, bad luck, miracle plays etc) the 2 things arent always the same


said another way: if you think the 2004 Pats were better than the 2007 Pats, then you better also think the 2007 Giants were better than the 2007 Pats

Those are valid points. But what if the other teams Offense is just as good? You gotta be able to stop them.

 

[Lifer]

and btw:

the 2004 Pats gave up 51 points in the playoffs
the 2007 Pats gave up 49 points in the playoffs

the 2004 Patriots played better teams in the playoffs than the 2007 Patriots.

and unfortunately the 2007 Patriots picked the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl to play lousy. Its not one "miracle" play that beat them. The Patriots NEVER should have been in a position where one miracle play could beat them. That is their own fault. Nobody made a play at the end.

 

[ligermark]

The 2004 team is the best in Patriots history. Imaginary match-ups mean nothing, the playoffs determine who is the best. That's what they are there for. While I like the '07 team better on paper, the reality is that from week 16 of the 2004 season through SB 39 the Pats played the best football in franchise history. The dominant playoff wins over Indy and Pittsburgh, who would combine to win the next two Super Bowls, are the two greatest performances in franchise history.

 

[Harry Yelreh]

I'd have to say 2004, not because of defense or offense, but because that team made plays in the clutch, did what it had to in order to win games down the stretch to be a champion. That's all, basically.

I won't say offense was better, because it wasn't, overall. I won't say defense, because I don't really think it was better or at least THAT much better. 2007 Pats gave up zero TDs in 9 straight quarters in the playoffs; that's astounding.

The difference is not any major phase of the game but rather is really just that the 2004 team would have made that sack on Manning or broken up the pass to Tyree or picked off Manning instead of dropping an INT. That's all.