2004 Patriots - What a team!!

[Bella*chick]

yes, let's focus on the that Colts game a second......

Manning had just thrown 49 Touchdown passes

Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, and Brandon Stokely EACH had at least 1,000 yards and 10 TDs

The Patriots had to play the game without Richard Seymour and Ty Law. Don't forget Rodney suffered a season ending injury at PIT earlier in the year.

Troy Brown was being used as a DB, and proved to be effective.

That was an amazing team and an amazing game. I hold this game right up there with the win against the Rams. Tedy Bruschi was playing like a man possessed that game.

My memory from that game was wondering how on earth they would stop the Colts (but knowing they somehow would). In pre-game warmup, Vrabel said something about having something different planned and I completely relaxed. Something about the way he said it and the look on his face was just....I knew they'd win.

That was an amazing season. Remember the Rams game with Troy Brown doing.....well, everything? I was so freakin' giddy after that game. My dad had been trying to tell me the Patriots weren't "that good"....too many injuries, and I just responded, "yes, THEY ARE." Boy, did I make him eat crow at the end of the year.

This was the 3 Games to Glory DVD I popped in when I was in labor. My "relaxing" DVD to get me through the pain.

 

[brdmaverick]

The 2003 team was the most fun with all of the last second wins, but the 2004 was the better team. The '04 team could win in ANY way possible. Remember them winning shootouts when they had to (vs. Colts, vs. Bengals) but could also play ball control running game against the best of them (27-3 whooping of the Ravens in a slop filled Gillette that appeared to cator to the Raven's strengths).

 

[Lansdowne]

yes, let's focus on the that Colts game a second......

Manning had just thrown 49 Touchdown passes

Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, and Brandon Stokely EACH had at least 1,000 yards and 10 TDs

The Patriots had to play the game without Richard Seymour and Ty Law. Don't forget Rodney suffered a season ending injury at PIT earlier in the year.

Troy Brown was being used as a DB, and proved to be effective.

That was an amazing team and an amazing game. I hold this game right up there with the win against the Rams. Tedy Bruschi was playing like a man possessed that game.

That was an astounding game. Jarvis Green stepped up big time in Seymour's absence. Though you're confusing Harrison's injury for the one that happened in 2005. If you'll remember, it was Harrison that sealed the SB against the Eagles with the INT.

 

[muslimman]

Ugh you guys are all making me jealous. I missed like half the games (none of the playoffs though) that season because I was slacking off as a fan.
I guess I thought it could not get any better because I had actually went to the Superbowl against the Panthers to see them win...

 

[ausbacker]

This was the 3 Games to Glory DVD I popped in when I was in labor. My "relaxing" DVD to get me through the pain.

I'd reckon I have seen this DVD about 20 times now and am currently awaiting the History of the Patriots being shipped to here in Aus.

That'll probably get the same amount of video play in a short time too

God I love the Patriots.

 

[BSR]

I've been a fan for a long time, and I loved that 2004 team. That said, the 2007 patriots would have crushed the 2004 patriots, no contest.

Absolutely right. I can't believe more people aren't saying this. If Samuel holds onto a ball he should have caught, this isn't even up for debate. That 2007 team could have been arguably the best team of all time, but they didn't win.

 

[Yehoodi]

yes, let's focus on the that Colts game a second......

Manning had just thrown 49 Touchdown passes

Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, and Brandon Stokely EACH had at least 1,000 yards and 10 TDs

The Patriots had to play the game without Richard Seymour and Ty Law. Don't forget Rodney suffered a season ending injury at PIT earlier in the year.

Troy Brown was being used as a DB, and proved to be effective.

That was an amazing team and an amazing game. I hold this game right up there with the win against the Rams. Tedy Bruschi was playing like a man possessed that game.

that was '05, he played in the '04 playoffs . . .

Actually, we have only lost one playoff game (SB42) when Harrison has played. Too bad we did not have him for the '05 and '06 playoffs . . .

 

[Rob0729]

while the 2004 team was better balanced, I still believe the 2003 was a better team

I think the 2003 defense is one of the most underrated defenses in NFL history, but I felt that might have been the worst year for the Pats' offense with Brady under center. Even worse than when Brady had Caldwell as his primary target in 2006. That offense couldn't stay on the field and had tons of three and outs. The defense kept the opposing team's scores really low so that the Pats could win a handful of games without even scoring a single TD (there were three games where the Pats didn't score a single offensive TD and were 2-1 in them) or scoring less than 20 points (the Pats were 5-2 in the regular season and 1-0 in the post season scoring less than 20 points and a few of those games had defensive TDs to boot).

 

[Rob0729]

I've been a fan for a long time, and I loved that 2004 team. That said, the 2007 patriots would have crushed the 2004 patriots, no contest.

I seriously doubt that. The 2004 Patriots beat the Colts twice. Until last year, the 2004 Colts held several of the records that Brady and the offense broke last year including the passing TD record. I think if the 2004 Patriots could be the 2004 Colts twice (one wasn't even close), I think they could have held their own vs. the 2007 Patriots.

 

[Rob0729]

Absolutely right. I can't believe more people aren't saying this. If Samuel holds onto a ball he should have caught, this isn't even up for debate. That 2007 team could have been arguably the best team of all time, but they didn't win.

The thing is that the 2004 team was a complete team. The 2007 team was a dominant offense and an average defense. I still think the 2004 Pats could have had a chance to win against the 2007 team. Add the fact that Corey Dillon (that year's rushing leader in per game played average) missed the Steelers game which was their only other loss which made them one dimensional. Don't forget the Pats were two stupid Brady throws against the Dolphins away from being 18-1 themselves in 2004 with their one loss in the regular season.

I know I am playing that what if game, but if Brady doesn't make those throws and Dillon doesn't miss the Steelers' game (even if Law went out), that Pats team might have been the one that went for a perfect season.

 

[Bella*chick]

For some reason, this thread got to me last night....about last year's team. I thought about how close we were and what might have been for the 2007 team. And it bothered me a lot more than usual. I think it's because the 2004 DVD is such a great comfort thing for me and I feel cheated that I don't have it for last year, since last year was so intense and meant so much.

I thought I was over it but I'm pretty sure I never will be. Sucks.

 

[Lifer]

I've been a fan for a long time, and I loved that 2004 team. That said, the 2007 patriots would have crushed the 2004 patriots, no contest.

Which 2007 team, the first half team, or the fading second half team. I dont think there is any way the team that finished last year beats the 2004 team.

 

[Lifer]

The 2003 team was the most fun with all of the last second wins, but the 2004 was the better team. The '04 team could win in ANY way possible. Remember them winning shootouts when they had to (vs. Colts, vs. Bengals) but could also play ball control running game against the best of them (27-3 whooping of the Ravens in a slop filled Gillette that appeared to cator to the Raven's strengths).

Exactly! That was good, solid Ravens team and the Patriots made them look like nothing. They did the same thing to a very good Jets team in New York.
The 2003 team never really blew out anybody except for that beautiful 31-0 revenge game on Buffalo. The 2004 team also went into Arrowhead and made easy work of a good Chiefs team on MNF.

For me, it was comes back to the playoffs that year. Only an all-time great team dominates the 2004 Colts and the 2004 Steelers like that.

 

[BSR]

The thing is that the 2004 team was a complete team. The 2007 team was a dominant offense and an average defense. I still think the 2004 Pats could have had a chance to win against the 2007 team. Add the fact that Corey Dillon (that year's rushing leader in per game played average) missed the Steelers game which was their only other loss which made them one dimensional. Don't forget the Pats were two stupid Brady throws against the Dolphins away from being 18-1 themselves in 2004 with their one loss in the regular season.

I know I am playing that what if game, but if Brady doesn't make those throws and Dillon doesn't miss the Steelers' game (even if Law went out), that Pats team might have been the one that went for a perfect season.

I don't buy the 2004 team being a more complete team then the 2007. That 2004 team didn't have the staunchest of defenses either. You are also underestimating the 2007 defense last year as well. Did you know that they only surrendered 12 more total points the entire year then the top defense that year (274 vs 262)? Did you realize that they went 9 consecutive quarters in the playoffs without surrendering a TD? Compare the two defenses, player for player, and there isn't much of a difference. Some players have gotten older and slower (Bruschi and Vrable) but others actually improved (Wilfork, Warren and Samuel). Lets not forget how special that 2007 team was just because of the SB loss. I think the fact that they were so good makes it so hard for me to get over that loss.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't buy the 2004 team being a more complete team then the 2007. That 2004 team didn't have the staunchest of defenses either. You are also underestimating the 2007 defense last year as well. Did you know that they only surrendered 12 more total points the entire year then the top defense that year (274 vs 262)? Did you realize that they went 9 consecutive quarters in the playoffs without surrendering a TD? Compare the two defenses, player for player, and there isn't much of a difference. Some players have gotten older and slower (Bruschi and Vrable) but others actually improved (Wilfork, Warren and Samuel). Lets not forget how special that 2007 team was just because of the SB loss. I think the fact that they were so good makes it so hard for me to get over that loss.

The Pats offense helped last year's defense. It is easy to defend a team that has become one dimensional and forced to pass down the field a lot when the offense has gotten your team a 3-4 TD lead in the first half. They were not nearly as good as the 2004 defense. The red zone defense was suspect last year too like this year. The defense didn't have to win any games last year either.

I am not taking away anything from the 2007 team, but the 2004 team lost only one more game than the 2007 team. Brady doesn't make two stupid passes in Miami and Dillon plays the Steelers' game and that team might have gone 19-0. So let's not take anything away from them either. And they didn't have nearly the offense the 2007 team had to work with. They had to win with both sides of the ball. They were the more complete team no matter what stats suggest.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Pats offense helped last year's defense. It is easy to defend a team that has become one dimensional and forced to pass down the field a lot when the offense has gotten your team a 3-4 TD lead in the first half. They were not nearly as good as the 2004 defense. The red zone defense was suspect last year too like this year. The defense didn't have to win any games last year either.

I am not taking away anything from the 2007 team, but the 2004 team lost only one more game than the 2007 team. Brady doesn't make two stupid passes in Miami and Dillon plays the Steelers' game and that team might have gone 19-0. So let's not take anything away from them either. And they didn't have nearly the offense the 2007 team had to work with. They had to win with both sides of the ball. They were the more complete team no matter what stats suggest.

On the other hand, by playing with such leads, the defense was often put into a situation of just killing clock. Yes it brought pressure on occasion, but it also sat back a lot.

The real difference between the two teams is that the 2004 defense couldn't have stopped the 2007 offense, but the 2007 defense could have slowed down/stopped the 2004 offense. Taking both teams playing their best, I'd expect the 2007 team to win.

Now, having said this, I would also note that one of the other significant changes could have a huge impact on the game, and that is the ability to be physical with the receivers all the way down the field.

 

[Rob0729]

On the other hand, by playing with such leads, the defense was often put into a situation of just killing clock. Yes it brought pressure on occasion, but it also sat back a lot.

The real difference between the two teams is that the 2004 defense couldn't have stopped the 2007 offense, but the 2007 defense could have slowed down/stopped the 2004 offense. Taking both teams playing their best, I'd expect the 2007 team to win.

Now, having said this, I would also note that one of the other significant changes could have a huge impact on the game, and that is the ability to be physical with the receivers all the way down the field.

Why couldn't the 2004 defense stop the 2007 offense? The Giants did. The Ravens did for the most part. The 2004 Pats defense stopped the Colts on four shots at the endzone at home and then held them to 3 points in the playoffs (they averaged 32.6 PPG that year).

Defense wins championships as we saw last year. I personally would take the 2004 or 2003 team over the 2007 team for that reason if I was going to pick one for one game to win a Super Bowl. Although people love to blame the offense for the Super Bowl loss last year, if the defense did it job on any one of three plays on the final drive and the Pats win the Super Bowl. I will always go with the team with the better defense when things are pretty close.

 

[Sivy]

Which 2007 team, the first half team, or the fading second half team. I dont think there is any way the team that finished last year beats the 2004 team.

Any part of that team that wasnt in the one that played in the superbowl. For the most part they blew people away, and in the second half of the season, they even won some close ones, much like the 04 patriots. That fluke of a game and the end of the season doesnt count (atleast not in this post)

 

[Lifer]

On the other hand, by playing with such leads, the defense was often put into a situation of just killing clock. Yes it brought pressure on occasion, but it also sat back a lot.

The real difference between the two teams is that the 2004 defense couldn't have stopped the 2007 offense, but the 2007 defense could have slowed down/stopped the 2004 offense. Taking both teams playing their best, I'd expect the 2007 team to win.

Now, having said this, I would also note that one of the other significant changes could have a huge impact on the game, and that is the ability to be physical with the receivers all the way down the field.

I dont buy your logic. It wasnt just the Giants in the SB. The Chargers werent exactly blown away by the Patriots offense in the AFCC Game. The Ravens, the Eagles, the Patriots offense was slowed down quite a bit in the second half of the season. If those teams could do it, Belichick, Crennel, Mangini and a younger Patriot defense of 2004 could have done it too.
They held an offense comparable to the 2007 Patriots, the 2004 Colts, to 3 POINTS. WITHOUT SEYMOUR!
Its not what you do in September and October, its what happens as you get into December, January, and February.

look, 2007 was an historic year and i give last years team credit. But to say they were better than the 2004 team doesnt make sense to me as the 2004 was at its best when it counted, the mark of a Champion.

Lets not forget intangibles, the 2004 always played above itself, and when it mattered most, when the most people were watching. Compare the 2004 playoffs to the 2007 playoffs. Its not close.

 

[Deus Irae]

Why couldn't the 2004 defense stop the 2007 offense? The Giants did. The Ravens did for the most part. The 2004 Pats defense stopped the Colts on four shots at the endzone at home and then held them to 3 points in the playoffs (they averaged 32.6 PPG that year).

Defense wins championships as we saw last year. I personally would take the 2004 or 2003 team over the 2007 team for that reason if I was going to pick one for one game to win a Super Bowl. Although people love to blame the offense for the Super Bowl loss last year, if the defense did it job on any one of three plays on the final drive and the Pats win the Super Bowl. I will always go with the team with the better defense when things are pretty close.

Taking both teams playing their best, I'd expect the 2007 team to win.

Are you claiming that the 2007 team played its best in the Super Bowl?