2004 Patriots - What a team!!

[BSR]

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.

That 2004 defense wasn't as good as you are making them out to be. They weren't like that 2003 team. They did a great job against Indy that year in the playoffs, but remember that had just as much to do with the weather and the ability of the running game to chew clock. Even if you look at that Miami game in 2004, sure Brady through the pick but it was the defense that let up the winning score.

Again, its not just about the stats. Do a player by player comparison of the defensive starters and I think you have a hard time saying one is that much better then the other either way:

2004 Seymour, Wilfork, Green, Vrable, Willie, Bruschi, Phifer, Gay, Samuels, Harrison and Wilson

vs

2007 Seymour, Wilfork, Warran, Vrable, Thomas, Bruschi, Seau, Hobbs, Samuels, Harrison and Sanders

 

[Lifer]

That 2004 defense wasn't as good as you are making them out to be. They weren't like that 2003 team. They did a great job against Indy that year in the playoffs, but remember that had just as much to do with the weather and the ability of the running game to chew clock. Even if you look at that Miami game in 2004, sure Brady through the pick but it was the defense that let up the winning score.

Again, its not just about the stats. Do a player by player comparison of the defensive starters and I think you have a hard time saying one is that much better then the other either way:

2004 Seymour, Wilfork, Green, Vrable, Willie, Bruschi, Phifer, Gay, Samuels, Harrison and Wilson

vs

2007 Seymour, Wilfork, Warran, Vrable, Thomas, Bruschi, Seau, Hobbs, Samuels, Harrison and Sanders

You dont just go by that. The 2004 team was younger and it played better, especially when it mattered. Watch the last 8 games of each season and just use your eyes. Which team looked more dominant?

Hate to say it, but they were a much crisper run team with Weis and Crennel.
And Seymour, Bruschi, and Harrison were better in 2004.

 

[BSR]

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 Chargers didn't score a TD the entire game. The offense held the ball for the last 9 minutes of the game running it down the throats of a very good San Diego front seven. In the previous game against the Jaguars, Brady and the offense were almost FLAWLESS. They were awesome in the playoffs. Did the last minute of the superbowl wipe away everyones memory of what happened that year?

The Ravens, the Eagles, the Patriots offense was slowed down quite a bit in the second half of the season.

You do realized they averaged 30 points a game the last 6 games of the season, right?

Here is the breakdown:
PHI: 31
BAL: 27
PIT: 34
NYJ: 20
MIA: 28
NYG: 38

So beacuse they were no longer scoring 40+ points a game against some of the best defenses in the league they were somehow not that great? Keep in mind that 2004 team only averaged 27.3 pts a game. So even the 2007 "slowed down" offense was better then the 2004 offense, which was still the strength of that team.

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.

That's just insane. If Asante holds onto that ball then the there is no question of which team was the better team. That shouldn't change simply because of that one play. That 2004 team was a great team. No question. The 2007 team was better.

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.[/QUOTE]

 

[Lifer]

The Chargers didn't score a TD the entire game. The offense held the ball for the last 9 minutes of the game running it down the throats of a very good San Diego front seven. In the previous game against the Jaguars, Brady and the offense were almost FLAWLESS. They were awesome in the playoffs. Did the last minute of the superbowl wipe away everyones memory of what happened that year?



You do realized they averaged 30 points a game the last 6 games of the season, right?

Here is the breakdown:
PHI: 31
BAL: 27
PIT: 34
NYJ: 20
MIA: 28
NYG: 38

So beacuse they were no longer scoring 40+ points a game against some of the best defenses in the league they were somehow not that great? Keep in mind that 2004 team only averaged 27.3 pts a game. So even the 2007 "slowed down" offense was better then the 2004 offense, which was still the strength of that team.



That's just insane. If Asante holds onto that ball then the there is no question of which team was the better team. That shouldn't change simply because of that one play. That 2004 team was a great team. No question. The 2007 team was better.

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.

[/QUOTE]

You are saying the 2007 playoffs compare to the 2004 playoffs? Now thats insane.

The 2004 team played the best offense in football and held it to 3 points. Do you compare last years Jaguars to the 2004 Colts?

The 2004 played the best defense in football and scored 41 points. Do you compare last years Chargers to the 15-1 2004 Steelers??

The Patriots, for as great as you say they played against the Chargers, never put that team, which was playing without LT and with a banged up Rivers, away until that final drive.

And lets stop with the "just one drop by Samuel". Are you telling me the Patriots, other than that, played a good game against the Giants?

ok, people.
2004 - wins over Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia
2007 - wins over Jacksonville, San Diego, loss to Giants.

Who were the tougher opponents? Which Patriot team played better?

 

[BSR]

You dont just go by that. The 2004 team was younger and it played better, especially when it mattered. Watch the last 8 games of each season and just use your eyes. Which team looked more dominant?

Hate to say it, but they were a much crisper run team with Weis and Crennel.
And Seymour, Bruschi, and Harrison were better in 2004.

Bruschi and Harrison were no doubt better in 04.

Seymour was hurt throughout the second half of 04 and missed many of the games in the playoffs. I don't know how he could be considered better.

Sameul, Wilfork, Warren were all better in 07.

As for watching the last 8 games of each season, I think you should realize there were much higher expectations for the 07 team then the 04. If the 07 team didn't blow out a team then it was a disappointment. In 04 it was all about winning.

 

[Rob0729]

That 2004 defense wasn't as good as you are making them out to be. They weren't like that 2003 team. They did a great job against Indy that year in the playoffs, but remember that had just as much to do with the weather and the ability of the running game to chew clock. Even if you look at that Miami game in 2004, sure Brady through the pick but it was the defense that let up the winning score.

Again, its not just about the stats. Do a player by player comparison of the defensive starters and I think you have a hard time saying one is that much better then the other either way:

2004 Seymour, Wilfork, Green, Vrable, Willie, Bruschi, Phifer, Gay, Samuels, Harrison and Wilson

vs

2007 Seymour, Wilfork, Warran, Vrable, Thomas, Bruschi, Seau, Hobbs, Samuels, Harrison and Sanders

First, Green was not a starter in 2004. He was a situational rusher. Ty Warren started all of 2004.

Second, Ty Law started the first eight games for the Pats.

Third, Wilson was spectacular in 2004. He didn't fall apart until after 2005. He also started the first quarter of the season last year while Harrison was suspended.

Fourth, Seymour missed the first six games last year due to complications from surgery. He never really got his grove going until the post season.

Fifth, Colvin started the first 11 games and Seau and Bruschi rotated the position. AD played out of position inside because of this.

Sixth, the 3 man rotation of Vrabel, McGinest, and Colvin was probably greater OLBs than the Pats ever had under Belichick and the overall LB corp in 2004 was better than anything since. Phifer was a great ILB for the Pats' defense although he did show a little sign of age in 2004.

Seven, Harrison and Bruschi pre-2005 were MVPs in this defense. Bruschi was the heart and sole and was a spark plug. Harrison was as good a safety as their was in the league. In 2007, they were both shells of their former selves. Harrison missed the first four games as I stated and was good, but not great. Bruschi was a liability in spaces last year although good vs. the run.

 

[Rob0729]

Bruschi and Harrison were no doubt better in 04.

Seymour was hurt throughout the second half of 04 and missed many of the games in the playoffs. I don't know how he could be considered better.

Sameul, Wilfork, Warren were all better in 07.

As for watching the last 8 games of each season, I think you should realize there were much higher expectations for the 07 team then the 04. If the 07 team didn't blow out a team then it was a disappointment. In 04 it was all about winning.

Are you saying that Seymour was better last year while he was on PUP for the first six games? Yes, Seymour missed a handful of games at the end of the 2004 season due to a cheapshot by Mawae, but he was playing at a Pro Bowl level until then.

 

[Lifer]

Bruschi and Harrison were no doubt better in 04.

Seymour was hurt throughout the second half of 04 and missed many of the games in the playoffs. I don't know how he could be considered better.

Sameul, Wilfork, Warren were all better in 07.

As for watching the last 8 games of each season, I think you should realize there were much higher expectations for the 07 team then the 04. If the 07 team didn't blow out a team then it was a disappointment. In 04 it was all about winning.

So you are saying they were under more pressure? The 2004 team were the defending World Champions. They were getting teams best each week just as much. And I said this last year and got blasted for it, if last years team suffered because of the pressure, then thats an intangible you have to look at. You cant have it both ways, if they didnt play as well because of the pressure, then they didnt play as well, thus proving my point. They werent as good at the end of the season as the 2004 team was.

Also, if they won as they did without Seymour, doesnt that tell you something? How far would the 2007 team have gotten without Seymour?

Im tired of Samuel getting all the blame for the Super Bowl. From the beginning of that game I got a bad feeling about how they were playing. There was no excuse for how the OL got manhandled.

Either they werent as good as the Giants, which as this season progresses, looks like that may have been the case, and that proves the case because there is no way the 2007 Giants were as good as the 2004 Patriots..

OR
They were better than the Giants and werent emotionally tough enough to handle the "pressure", which again proves the case for the 2004 team, as the 2004 team thrived on pressure and challenges. One more time i point to the playoff game against the Colts. Watch the tape of that game. That Patriot team would do the same thing to last years Patriots, maybe not as one-sided, but Dillon was a monster, the OL was awesome, Brady totally on target, the defense just hitting on all cylanders. You can MAYBE convince me on the right day that the 2007 team could have been as good, but NO WAY was the 2007 team better. If they were they would have gotten the ring. And its not "one play".

 

[BSR]

You are saying the 2007 playoffs compare to the 2004 playoffs? Now thats insane.

The 2004 team played the best offense in football and held it to 3 points. Do you compare last years Jaguars to the 2004 Colts?

The 2004 played the best defense in football and scored 41 points. Do you compare last years Chargers to the 15-1 2004 Steelers??[/quote]

The 2007 team could only play who was on their schedule. They won both games by two scores. They did both in dominating fashion.

The Patriots, for as great as you say they played against the Chargers, never put that team, which was playing without LT and with a banged up Rivers, away until that final drive.

They won by two scores and held onto the ball for the last 9 minutes of the game, if that isn't "putting it away" then I don't know what is.

And lets stop with the "just one drop by Samuel". Are you telling me the Patriots, other than that, played a good game against the Giants?

Does it matter? We are still talking about one play beign the difference between 2007 being arguably the greatest team of all time to some incomplete second half fading team. If Samuel makes that catch and they kneel the rest of the way would you still be arguing this?

 

[Lifer]

You are saying the 2007 playoffs compare to the 2004 playoffs? Now thats insane.

The 2004 team played the best offense in football and held it to 3 points. Do you compare last years Jaguars to the 2004 Colts?

The 2004 played the best defense in football and scored 41 points. Do you compare last years Chargers to the 15-1 2004 Steelers??

they did not "dominate" the Chargers. And no, if the Patriots of last year were "finishers" and found a way to win, we probably wouldnt be talking about it.

But if Brady took a knee in SB 36 and the Patriots lost to the Rams in OT do you think we would look at 2001 the same way? Would the Rams be remembered differently?

If the Raiders hadnt laid down like dogs in the Snow Game and found a way to win do you think the 2001 Raiders would be looked at differently?

If Norwood makes the kick are the 1990 Giants looked at the same?

If Brady doesnt drive the team down in SB 38 and the Panthers win, are the Panthers, and the 2003 Patriots, looked at the same?

I hate to tell you, but it does matter that the Patriots blew the Super Bowl. Just as it matters the 1968 Colts blew the Super Bowl.

Champions find a way to win. There were many opportunities for the Patriots to win that Super Bowl last year. They didnt do it. That does change things and how they are remembered.

 

[BSR]

First, Green was not a starter in 2004. He was a situational rusher. Ty Warren started all of 2004.

You're right. I was going by the superbowl starting line up, which for some reason, he wasn't listed.

Fourth, Seymour missed the first six games last year due to complications from surgery. He never really got his grove going until the post season.

Seymour missed two of the post season games, so I don't think you can say he got his grove back.

Sixth, the 3 man rotation of Vrabel, McGinest, and Colvin was probably greater OLBs than the Pats ever had under Belichick and the overall LB corp in 2004 was better than anything since. Phifer was a great ILB for the Pats' defense although he did show a little sign of age in 2004.

Colvin was still recovering from his hip injury in 2004 and his seasons in 2004 and 2007 were comprable. Vrabel had a better year in 2007 then he had in 2004. And a young Thomas is every bit as good as McGinest in that year if not better.

Seven, Harrison and Bruschi pre-2005 were MVPs in this defense. Bruschi was the heart and sole and was a spark plug. Harrison was as good a safety as their was in the league. In 2007, they were both shells of their former selves. Harrison missed the first four games as I stated and was good, but not great. Bruschi was a liability in spaces last year although good vs. the run.

Harrison had a great year last year. He was flying around everywhere making plays. Granted he wasn't what he was in 2004 but he was still really good. Bruschi certainly showed his age last year though.

And lets not forget where Hobbs>Gay, Samuel(07)>Samuel(04), Wilfork (07)> Wilfork (04), Warren (07)> Warren (04).

The two defenses were pretty comprable, and any difference sure doesn't make up for the disparity on offense.

 

[BSR]

Are you saying that Seymour was better last year while he was on PUP for the first six games? Yes, Seymour missed a handful of games at the end of the 2004 season due to a cheapshot by Mawae, but he was playing at a Pro Bowl level until then.

Like you said, it depends when you look at it but yes he did have a better year overall in 04. I thought I was refering to the last 8 games?

 

[Lifer]

You're right. I was going by the superbowl starting line up, which for some reason, he wasn't listed.



Seymour missed two of the post season games, so I don't think you can say he got his grove back.



Colvin was still recovering from his hip injury in 2004 and his seasons in 2004 and 2007 were comprable. Vrabel had a better year in 2007 then he had in 2004. And a young Thomas is every bit as good as McGinest in that year if not better.



Harrison had a great year last year. He was flying around everywhere making plays. Granted he wasn't what he was in 2004 but he was still really good. Bruschi certainly showed his age last year though.

And lets not forget where Hobbs>Gay, Samuel(07)>Samuel(04), Wilfork (07)> Wilfork (04), Warren (07)> Warren (04).

The two defenses were pretty comprable, and any difference sure doesn't make up for the disparity on offense.

most of the disparity came early in the season. At the end, when it mattered, last years offense wasnt as dominant. Ask the NY Giants.

And as good as last years defense may have been, it didnt do it when it mattered most.

Tell me I have to stake my life on the outcome of a game between the 2004 and 2007 teams, i would go with the 2004 team every time. I bet Belichick would too.

 

[BSR]

So you are saying they were under more pressure? The 2004 team were the defending World Champions. They were getting teams best each week just as much. And I said this last year and got blasted for it, if last years team suffered because of the pressure, then thats an intangible you have to look at. You cant have it both ways, if they didnt play as well because of the pressure, then they didnt play as well, thus proving my point. They werent as good at the end of the season as the 2004 team was.

Ummm...that's not what I said. OUR preception as to how they performed last year is tainted by OUR expectations of the team. They played great. However, it wasn't enough for them to win around here. They needed to win by 20+ points every week so that they could cover the ridiculous expectations of them. Nobody expected the 2004 team to blow out EVERY opponent regardless of who they were and so if they just simply one it was good enough. I remember all the arguments around here back then with trolls complaining that we didn't win our superbowls by enough points. Now that 2007 team didn't win by enough style points in the end of the year.

Also, if they won as they did without Seymour, doesnt that tell you something? How far would the 2007 team have gotten without Seymour?

They didn't have Seymour for much of the year in 2007,

Im tired of Samuel getting all the blame for the Super Bowl. From the beginning of that game I got a bad feeling about how they were playing. There was no excuse for how the OL got manhandled.

I wasn't saying that Samuel deserves all the blame. There was plenty of opportunities for them to win that game in other was. However, that is the one singular play that you could look at that you could definitely say that they would have won the game if the play was made.

Either they werent as good as the Giants, which as this season progresses, looks like that may have been the case, and that proves the case because there is no way the 2007 Giants were as good as the 2004 Patriots..

OR
They were better than the Giants and werent emotionally tough enough to handle the "pressure", which again proves the case for the 2004 team, as the 2004 team thrived on pressure and challenges. One more time i point to the playoff game against the Colts. Watch the tape of that game. That Patriot team would do the same thing to last years Patriots, maybe not as one-sided, but Dillon was a monster, the OL was awesome, Brady totally on target, the defense just hitting on all cylanders. You can MAYBE convince me on the right day that the 2007 team could have been as good, but NO WAY was the 2007 team better. If they were they would have gotten the ring. And its not "one play".

Just answer me this question, if Samuel makes that catch, which team is better? 2007 NEP or 2004 NEP?

 

[Deus Irae]

most of the disparity came early in the season. At the end, when it mattered, last years offense wasnt as dominant. Ask the NY Giants.

The Patriots put up 38 on the Giants during the last week of the season. Even in the second half of last season, which everyone likes to bag on, the Patriots scored:

24
56
31
27
34
20
28 and
38
points.

In other words, the team averaged more than 32 points per game even in the bad weather games at the end of the year. And that's with the team playing "Let's get Randy and Tommy the record!" in the second half of that Dolphins game when it could have been methodically driving the ball downfield instead of just chucking the ball up for grabs.

 

[BSR]

most of the disparity came early in the season. At the end, when it mattered, last years offense wasnt as dominant. Ask the NY Giants.

So now its about one game? The evaluation of an offense in a season is one game? Look at any stretch during that year and I am sure the 2007 offense was still better then the 2004 offense.

And as good as last years defense may have been, it didnt do it when it mattered most.

Tell me I have to stake my life on the outcome of a game between the 2004 and 2007 teams, i would go with the 2004 team every time. I bet Belichick would too.

I'll take the 2007 team every time, and I bet Belichick would too. Afterall, the 2007 team was 18-1 the 2004 team was 17-2.

 

[BradyBranch39]

After watching the 36 DVD a few days ago, you guys are making me want to pop in the 39 one too.

 

[Rob0729]

Seymour missed two of the post season games, so I don't think you can say he got his grove back.

Seymour missed the first six games and another game last year. He by his own admission was never really close to 100%. 2004 Seymour was much better than 2007 Seymour.

Colvin was still recovering from his hip injury in 2004 and his seasons in 2004 and 2007 were comprable. Vrabel had a better year in 2007 then he had in 2004. And a young Thomas is every bit as good as McGinest in that year if not better.

Thomas only played the last five games and the playoffs outside. He had an up and down season last year. Statistically Vrabel had a better year in sacks, but he had a better year in 2004.

Harrison had a great year last year. He was flying around everywhere making plays. Granted he wasn't what he was in 2004 but he was still really good. Bruschi certainly showed his age last year though.

Harrison was good, not great. He missed the first four games due to a suspension. He was nowhere near as good as 2004 where he deserved serious Defensive Player of the Year consideration.

And lets not forget where Hobbs>Gay, Samuel(07)>Samuel(04), Wilfork (07)> Wilfork (04), Warren (07)> Warren (04).

Law the first half the season of 2004 was better than either Samuel or Hobbs last year. I felt Warren had a down year last year because he got far more double teams.

Also, 2004 Wilson>than 2007 FS position (Wilson, Sanders, Meriweather).

The two defenses were pretty comprable, and any difference sure doesn't make up for the disparity on offense.

Yes, they are comparable. When you compare the two, the 2004 defense was much better. The Pats defense last year folded like a deck of cards in the red zone. The Pats defense in 2004 were downright stingy in the red zone. Please don't compare the two. The Pats had the best LB corp in the league in 2004.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'll take the 2007 team every time, and I bet Belichick would too. Afterall, the 2007 team was 18-1 the 2004 team was 17-2.

The 2007 team also played a harder schedule. The 2004 team's non-division foes combined for an 80-80 (.500) record. The 2007 team's non-division foes combined for a 96-64 (.600) record.

(In the interest of complete data, the Bills were 9-7 both years, the Jets were 10-6 in 2004 and 4-12 in 2007, and the Dolphins were 4-12 in 2004 and 1-15 in 2007. So, division opponents were 23-25 in 2004 and 14-34 in 2007. Thus, if you combined the W/L records of all teams played, the 2004 foes were under .500 at 103-105, while the 2007 foes were 110-98.)

 

[BSR]

Seymour missed the first six games and another game last year. He by his own admission was never really close to 100%. 2004 Seymour was much better than 2007 Seymour.

Thomas only played the last five games and the playoffs outside. He had an up and down season last year. Statistically Vrabel had a better year in sacks, but he had a better year in 2004.

Harrison was good, not great. He missed the first four games due to a suspension. He was nowhere near as good as 2004 where he deserved serious Defensive Player of the Year consideration.

Law the first half the season of 2004 was better than either Samuel or Hobbs last year. I felt Warren had a down year last year because he got far more double teams.

Also, 2004 Wilson>than 2007 FS position (Wilson, Sanders, Meriweather).

So in total I'd see it like:

2004 vs 2007
Seymour/Green>Seymour/Green
Wilfork<Wilfork
Warren<Warren
Vrabel=Vrabel
Bruschi>Bruschi/Seau
Phifer=Thomas/Seau
McGinest=Thomas/Colvin
Law/Gay<Samuel
Samuel/Brown/Poteat<Hobbs
Harrison>Harrison
Wilson>Sanders.

I'd see that as pretty even. Both teams had their strength up front. The 04 team was stronger in LBs, the 07 was stronger at the DL. BOth teams had their weaknesses in the secondary. The 04 team was weakest at the corners while the 07 was just more mediocre overall.

Yes, they are comparable. When you compare the two, the 2004 defense was much better. The Pats defense last year folded like a deck of cards in the red zone. The Pats defense in 2004 were downright stingy in the red zone. Please don't compare the two. The Pats had the best LB corp in the league in 2004.

The premise that you started out with was that the 04 team was a more complete team then the 07 team. The fact of the matter, however, is that the 07 team while having one of the greatest offenses in NFL history, also had a damn good defense. While it might not have been as good as the 04 defense it was still pretty damn close and a lot closer then the 04 offense was to the 07 offense. From a statistical point of view the defensive DVOA (from footballoutsiders.com) for the 04 team at -11% (ranked 6th in the leage that year) and -6% (ranked 8th) for the 07 defense. That isn't that wide of a disparity when you consider the tremendous difference in their offenses (43% vs 24%).

Trust me, I wish I could view the two teams with the same tinted glasses that you do. It would be much more comforting to think that the 2004 team was the better team and the 2007 team didn't just squander the greatest NFL season in history in the final minute of the season. Unfortunately, reality says differently. So by all means, please convince me. Maybe I'll do as one of the previous posters suggested and pop in the SB39 dvd. Maybe that will do it. I certainly hope so since I still can't shake the feeling that the 2007 should have been the best ever if not for that last cursed minute.