2004 Patriots - What a team!!

[woolster22]

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]

And that 20 pt Jets game was in crap weather, I was there, windy and sleet/rain, 32ish...not fun weather. In any case, this has all been summed up by a saying we have all heard before, "Offense wins games, defense wins championships." Big difference between 01, 03, 04 teams and last year? Defense. 07 was the 03/04 indy colts, the 01 Rams. I remember saying to a friend that the giants-pats was like the previous pats/"greatest show on turf" game...
Given many of the 07 players may have been the same on d, they were 3 years older. Bru had a stroke for christ sake. Rodney-old, Seau-old (but in better shape than bru apparently), Seymour-older, Warren-older. The d last year was good, but not its dominant youthful self. Not to mention the loss of big game Willie. I'm sure theres others that were in the 07 lineup im missing, but theres no way you can say the 07 defense could hold a candle to the 03/04 defense. 04 team finds a way to shut down Moss and Co. and eek out the shoot out win against the 07 pats. Maybe it would involve bumping the recievers to disrupt timing and getting in the qb's face...sounds like the colts game doesn't it?

 

[Lifer]

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.



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 2004 team were the World Champions. The 2007 team wasnt.
Id take the 17-2 team.

You asked that what if question about Samuel. I'll match it with another Eddie Andelman type question for you.

Could last years Super Bowl have turned out any worse?

fact is Samuel didnt make the catch.
If Adam doesnt kick the FG against the Rams in 2001, who is better, the 2001 Patriots or the Rams?

It matters who wins the Championship.

Its not always fair, but thats how it is.

Nobody threw a parade for the '68 Colts.

 

[Deus Irae]

The 2004 team were the World Champions. The 2007 team wasnt.
Id take the 17-2 team.

You asked that what if question about Samuel. I'll match it with another Eddie Andelman type question for you.

Could last years Super Bowl have turned out any worse?

fact is Samuel didnt make the catch.
If Adam doesnt kick the FG against the Rams in 2001, who is better, the 2001 Patriots or the Rams?

It matters who wins the Championship.

Its not always fair, but thats how it is.

Nobody threw a parade for the '68 Colts.

Season vs. team. 2007 was the best team of the Belichick era. 2001, 2003, 2004 had better seasons because they won the Super Bowl, and people look to the Super Bowl over 16-0.

Nobody threw a parade for UNLV after they lost to Duke either. It doesn't mean Duke was the better team.

 

[Lifer]

Season vs. team. 2007 was the best team of the Belichick era. 2001, 2003, 2004 had better seasons because they won the Super Bowl, and people look to the Super Bowl over 16-0.

Nobody threw a parade for UNLV after they lost to Duke either. It doesn't mean Duke was the better team.

Based on what? Duke proved themselves to be better. And they solidified it by following it up by winning it all again the next year. It just might have been that the Duke team that beat UNLV didnt get into full swing as a team until later in the season.

Sorry guys, but the NY Giants have shown the world this year that the real Giants of 2007 was the team that won all those games down the stretch, won AT Dallas, AT Green Bay, and beat the Patriots, and that team was better than the Patriots.
In the same way, the 2001 Patriots that won its final 9 games proved itself to be better than the 2001 Rams. The intangible of "winning" matters, because it calls into question what team has the toughness and wants it more. The 2001 Patriots knew how to get it done. That came from the coaches and it permeated the players. For whatever reason, the 2007 Patriots lacked that intangible when Champions are proven, just as it lacked it in 2006.
They had more talent maybe, had a flashier beginning, went 16-0 instead of 14-2 but the Patriot team at the end of 2004 was BETTER than the Patriot team at the end of 2007.
One wears the ring, the other doesnt, for good reason.

 

[Deus Irae]

Based on what? Duke proved themselves to be better. And they solidified it by following it up by winning it all again the next year. It just might have been that the Duke team that beat UNLV didnt get into full swing as a team until later in the season.

Sorry guys, but the NY Giants have shown the world this year that the real Giants of 2007 was the team that won all those games down the stretch, won AT Dallas, AT Green Bay, and beat the Patriots, and that team was better than the Patriots.
In the same way, the 2001 Patriots that won its final 9 games proved itself to be better than the 2001 Rams. The intangible of "winning" matters, because it calls into question what team has the toughness and wants it more. The 2001 Patriots knew how to get it done. That came from the coaches and it permeated the players. For whatever reason, the 2007 Patriots lacked that intangible when Champions are proven, just as it lacked it in 2006.
They had more talent maybe, had a flashier beginning, went 16-0 instead of 14-2 but the Patriot team at the end of 2004 was BETTER than the Patriot team at the end of 2007.
One wears the ring, the other doesnt, for good reason.

Ok, now I see where you're coming from. You either don't understand one of the basic realities of sports or you just don't grasp its significance and choose to avoid it:

Tiger Woods is the best golfer on the planet, but he doesn't win every tournament. The Giants, that great juggernaut that you're now claiming was better than the Patriots last season, lost 6 games last year and has followed that up with an 11-2 record that includes a loss to the Browns this season. No team has ever gone 19-0 in a season. New England would have been the first. UNLV had won 45 straight games and would have been the first team since '72/'73 to repeat as national champions. You don't seem to understand that the reason some things have never happened before, or have only happened very rarely, is because they are extremely difficult to do.

Sometimes the best man or team doesn't win. Unfortunately for UNLV and New England, the inevitable end to their winning streaks came at the worst possible time.

 

[Lifer]

Ok, now I understand. You don't understand one of the basic realities of sports:

Tiger Woods is the best golfer on the planet, but he doesn't win every tournament. The Giants, that great juggernaut that you're now claiming was better than the Patriots last season, lost 6 games last year and has followed that up with an 11-2 record that includes a loss to the Browns this season. No team has ever gone 19-0 in a season. New England would have been the first. UNLV had won 45 straight games and would have been the first team since '72/'73 to repeat as national champions. You don't seem to understand that the reason some things have never happened before, or have only happened very rarely, is because they are extremely difficult to do.

Sometimes the best man or team doesn't win. Unfortunately for UNLV and New England, the inevitable end to their winning streaks came at the worst possible time.

ok then, the 2001 Rams were the best team and the 2004 Steelers were the best team, because, per your logic, the best record is what matters.

As BB said about the 2004 team, it played its best in the most important times of the year.

How can anyone watch the performance of last years team, struggling at the Meadowlands, struggling against the Ravens, beating a so-so Jaguars team by what, 31-20? and playing an LT-less and Rivers hobbled Charger team the way they did, and the way they played in the Super Bowl...and compare it to the 2004 teams beating the Colts, Steelers, and Eagles in the playoffs.

I know last year hurts, but I think many of the problems weve seen this year just confirm some real weaknesses last years team had.

You can disagree, but thinking you need to explain sports to me is a little lame.

the 2004 Patriots are probably around the 5th best team ever. You think the 2007 is what? third or fourth? I dont think so, not playing the way they did last December, January, and February. Great teams play Great in the biggest games. The 2007 Patriots didnt.

 

[Deus Irae]

ok then, the 2001 Rams were the best team and the 2004 Steelers were the best team, because, per your logic, the best record is what matters.

As BB said about the 2004 team, it played its best in the most important times of the year.

How can anyone watch the performance of last years team, struggling at the Meadowlands, struggling against the Ravens, beating a so-so Jaguars team by what, 31-20? and playing an LT-less and Rivers hobbled Charger team the way they did, and the way they played in the Super Bowl...and compare it to the 2004 teams beating the Colts, Steelers, and Eagles in the playoffs.

Because we're smart enough to understand the game, probably. As I noted earlier, the 2007 team went undefeated against tougher competition. Even if you toss in the playoffs, they ended up with 1 loss, against tougher competition.

I know last year hurts, but I think many of the problems weve seen this year just confirm some real weaknesses last years team had.

1. Last year doesn't hurt. I don't play for the team. I'm a fan.

2. The problems of this year are specific to this year. The absense of Samuel, the integration of inexperienced linebackers, the rash of injuries at running back, the slow start for the offensive line and the season specific injuries (Particularly Brady) are all about this year, not last.

You can disagree, but thinking you need to explain sports to me is a little lame.

No, your stance on UNLV made it pretty clear that you don't appreciate the situation with long winning streaks. According to you, a UNLV team that had won 45 straight games before losing by 2 wasn't as good as a team that had lost 3 games that season and had been crushed by 30 in the Championship game against UNLV the year before. That explains a lot to me. You, in pimping the 2004 team, just ignore a week 15 loss to a 4-12 Dolphins team because it doesn't fit your narrative, but you point to a fluky 3 point loss to a 10-6 team after 18 straight wins as if it's damning evidence.

Great winning streaks come to an end. Sometimes they come to an end against bad opponents. Sometimes they come to an end against good opponents. Sometimes they even come to an end against very good opponents. That doesn't mean that the opponent was the better team. It just means that the opponent snapped a streak.

 

[Lifer]

Because we're smart enough to understand the game, probably. As I noted earlier, the 2007 team went undefeated against tougher competition. Even if you toss in the playoffs, they ended up with 1 loss, against tougher competition.



1. Last year doesn't hurt. I don't play for the team. I'm a fan.

2. The problems of this year are specific to this year. The absense of Samuel, the integration of inexperienced linebackers, the rash of injuries at running back, the slow start for the offensive line and the season specific injuries (Particularly Brady) are all about this year, not last.



No, your stance on UNLV made it pretty clear that you don't appreciate the situation with long winning streaks. According to you, a UNLV team that had won 45 straight games before losing by 2 wasn't as good as a team that had lost 3 games that season and had been crushed by 30 in the Championship game against UNLV the year before. That explains a lot to me. You, in pimping the 2004 team, just ignore a week 15 loss to a 4-12 Dolphins team because it doesn't fit your narrative, but you point to a fluky 3 point loss to a 10-6 team after 18 straight wins as if it's damning evidence.

Great winning streaks come to an end. Sometimes they come to an end against bad opponents. Sometimes they come to an end against good opponents. Sometimes they even come to an end against very good opponents. That doesn't mean that the opponent was the better team. It just means that the opponent snapped a streak.

well, as enjoyable as its been talking with you, we're just not going to agree.
You can resort to your wisecracks but it doesnt make you right.

instead of continuing this debate which obviously wont resolve itself to the satisfaction of either side, hopefully we can return the thread to what it was intended as, not a slight on 2007, but to give credit to the 2004 team, the World Champion New England Patriots.

 

[BSR]

The 2004 team were the World Champions. The 2007 team wasnt.
Id take the 17-2 team.

I'd take the championship for sure. However, you asked if I had to stake my life to a Patriots team which one would it be, I'd pick 2007 without thinking twice.

You asked that what if question about Samuel.

Which you refuse to answer. If Samuel makes the catch, are they the best Pats team ever?

But I will go ahead and answer your first.

I'll match it with another Eddie Andelman type question for you.

Could last years Super Bowl have turned out any worse?

Of course it could have.

fact is Samuel didnt make the catch.
If Adam doesnt kick the FG against the Rams in 2001, who is better, the 2001 Patriots or the Rams?

If Adam doesn't kick that FG against the Rams then the game goes into overtime and we have no idea who wins. Missing the kick wasn't determinate in the outcome, hitting it was. But winning is different then who was better. At the time I may have thought differently still pumped up from the win, but after a few years I looked back on that team and realized that they were lucky to win against that Rams team. They were stacked. It was a great team. The Patriots weren't the better overall team. Does that take anything away from them? No. I actually appreciate it more because of that realization. The Rams were the better team and the Pats beat them anyway for the championship.

It matters who wins the Championship.

Of course it does. I would much rather have the championship then the "best team" label any day of the week.

Other then that, I look at what Deus wrote and agree with almost all of it. I think his best example is that of Tiger Woods. Just because he doesn't win every match doesn't mean that he isn't the best golfer on the field in every match he plays. He is.

 

[Lifer]

ok, having time to digest this.

If Samuel makes the interception, are the 2007 Patriots the better team?

Well, then they would have the hardware. They would have found a way to win it.

But think about this....what if Tom Brady doesnt make that final drive in 2001.
Say the Patriots LOSE the Super Bowl 20-17, Brady finishes the game with 86 yards passing. Who do you think the Patriots fans would have been clamoring for in 2002?
"How could Belichick leave a Hall of Fame QB on the bench while a guy in his first playing season did nothing out there???"
its not fair, that 5 passes in one drive changed EVERYTHING. or even one, for if he had not connected on any of the 5 they dont win, except maybe Wiggins.
But it did. Belichick would have been Grady Littled in this town for not playing Bledsoe.
You know its true. Brady would not have been a hero, he would have been Eason'd.
the kid who passed for 86 yards in the SB loss.

So yes, Samuel picks off the pass, the Patriot limp to a 14-10 win in the SB, at 19-0 they would have been clearly the greatest Patriot team of all time.

it sometimes does come down to one play. Its not fair, but thats how it goes.

Champions find a way.

Watch the game tapes or your SB 39 DVD. The 2004 Team was a Champion.

As was said earlier by someone, the 2003 team had a better D, the 2007 team had a better O ( that underperformed throughout the playoffs), but the 2004 team had the best balanced team. And most dominant in the most important games.

 

[Deus Irae]

...So yes, Samuel picks off the pass, the Patriot limp to a 14-10 win in the SB, at 19-0 they would have been clearly the greatest Patriot team of all time.

it sometimes does come down to one play. Its not fair, but thats how it goes.

Champions find a way...

Using your argument, all 3 Patriots Super Bowl winning teams were better than the 2007 team. That's not the reality of sports. Go talk to the Dolphins players from the early 70's. Many of them will tell you that they thought the '73 team was better than the '72 team:

Finally, they turn a corner and Stanfill says, "There it is." The exhibit of the Perfect Season. Larry Csonka's jersey. Bob Griese's picture. Don Shula's smile -- he smiled that year? There's a football from the Super Bowl VII win. There are pictures from every game of the 1972 season. Csonka running. Warfield catching. Stanfill tackling.

Fernandez and Stanfill stare at everything under the glass case for a minute, reading inscriptions, noting the collected memories, saying nothing. Finally, Stanfill says, as a matter of history and matter of fact, "The thing is, we were better in 1973."

This is what most players feel. While 1972 etched their names in record books, they consider 1973 a more dominant season. Winning the first time brought more confidence in their talent, more trust in each other, more seasoning to individual careers -- and more of an intimidation factor to opponents, too. And they lost two games that year.

HISTORY: 1972 Perfect Season - 30th Anniversary Celebration - MiamiDolphins.com

Again, it's the difference between "team" and "season".

 

[Lifer]

Using your argument, all 3 Patriots Super Bowl winning teams were better than the 2007 team. That's not the reality of sports. Go talk to the Dolphins players from the early 70's. Many of them will tell you that they thought the '73 team was better than the '72 team:



HISTORY: 1972 Perfect Season - 30th Anniversary Celebration - MiamiDolphins.com

Again, it's the difference between "team" and "season".

Thank you, you just made my argument for me

the Dolphins players said the 15-2 team that won SB 8 was better than the undefeated team of 1972.
Im saying, the 2004 team that went 17-2 is better than the 18-1 team of 2008.
But at least the 72 Dolphins won the SB.

I never said the 2001 Patriots were better, or even the 2003 Patriots, although an arguement could be made as the 2003 Patriots had a much better defense, and won the SB. But that team didnt blow teams away and the offense at times was pretty bad.

Balance, depth, the intangibles...that is what set the 2004 team apart.

Part of our disagreement just may be our football philosophy. I put more stock in defense, it seems like you put more emphasis on offense. I may be wrong, but that why I had more faith in the Patriot teams earlier on this decade, they were more defense orientated. Id rather have a team win 17-3 than 38-20. Just better football to me.
More smashmouth. Old School. Ive seen too many Giants-Bills, Patriots-Rams, Giants-Patriots......defense beating offense games.
last years Patriots lived and died with offense. In the last 2 games of the season, in the biggest games, they werent that impressive.

 

[Deus Irae]

Thank you, you just made my argument for me

Not at all. The better "season" would be undefeated Super Bowl Champions. The better team didn't fare as well. You keep getting hung up on the ring, as you acknowledge when you lower the 2007 team based upon one dropped interception. Using your argument, the Pittsburgh team that won in 2005 was better than the 15-1 team that the Patriots beat in 2004, and the 2006 Colts team was better than the 2005 Colts team.

Part of our disagreement just may be our football philosophy. I put more stock in defense, it seems like you put more emphasis on offense. I may be wrong, but that why I had more faith in the Patriot teams earlier on this decade, they were more defense orientated. Id rather have a team win 17-3 than 38-20. Just better football to me.
More smashmouth. Old School. Ive seen too many Giants-Bills, Patriots-Rams, Giants-Patriots......defense beating offense games.

It's not about a difference in our 'philosophy' re: offense vs. defense. It's about a difference in understanding that the truism "sometimes the better team doesn't win" applies for a season just as it applies to a game. Referring to the paragraph above, the 2004 Steelers were better defensively than the 2005 defense, but they still lost.

 

[Lifer]

Not at all. The better "season" would be undefeated Super Bowl Champions. The better team didn't fare as well. You keep getting hung up on the ring, as you acknowledge when you lower the 2007 team based upon one dropped interception. Using your argument, the Pittsburgh team that won in 2005 was better than the 15-1 team that the Patriots beat in 2004, and the 2006 Colts team was better than the 2005 Colts team.



It's not about a difference in our 'philosophy' re: offense vs. defense. It's about a difference in understanding that the truism "sometimes the better team doesn't win" applies for a season just as it applies to a game. Referring to the paragraph above, the 2004 Steelers were better defensively than the 2005 defense, but they still lost.

As a matter fact, the Pittsburgh Steelers that tore through the league at the end of the 2005 season WAS better than the 15-1 team that the Patriots demolished in 2004. How could you say they werent? the Jets and the Patriots exposed the weaknesses of the 2004 Steelers in the playoffs.Im not as concerned with September and October as I am with the games after thanksgiving. The 2004 Steeler defense, over the long season, was probably better, but in 2005, when it mattered, in the playoffs, the 2005 Steeler defense was better.

The 2005 Steelers went into Indy and beat a fine Colts team ( more on that later) and pounded a Bronco team that had just beaten the Patriots. Roethlisburger was MUCH better than he was in 2004, and the Steelers were playing at the top of their game when they won the Super Bowl. They were playing like winners.

And yes, the 2006 Colts WERE better than the 2005 Colts, again, how can you say they werent. By the end of the season, the 2006 Colts FINALLY learned how to play defense. It was their defense that made them a balanced team finally, thus taking the heat off Manning to have to throw for 400 yards every week to win.

Defense and balance. When it counts, there is a reason some teams win titles and others dont. Dont get hung up on flashy, regular season records and yardage stats, which the league uses when ranking defenses. Again, im not concerned with September, its who is better when it matters.

you seem to love teams like the 2001 Rams, 2005 Colts, 2007 Patriots, how about the 1998 Vikings?
these are all great teams. But give me the 2004 Patriots, 2005 Steelers, 2006 Colts, the Lombardi Packers anyday. Well balanced teams with heart that find a way to win.

Yes, I get "hung up on the ring"

Yup, that kind of means something, to win the Championship.

 

[Deus Irae]

As a matter fact, the Pittsburgh Steelers that tore through the league at the end of the 2005 season WAS better than the 15-1 team that the Patriots demolished in 2004. How could you say they werent? the Jets and the Patriots exposed the weaknesses of the 2004 Steelers in the playoffs.Im not as concerned with September and October as I am with the games after thanksgiving. The 2004 Steeler defense, over the long season, was probably better, but in 2005, when it mattered, in the playoffs, the 2005 Steeler defense was better.

Actually, this is a perfect example of my point, and it's a great illustration of why your argument is so wrong. You call the 2004 Patriots team one of the 5 best in history, yet you penalize the Steelers for losing to them, while praising the 2005 Steelers team for beating lesser opponents.

...you seem to love teams like the 2001 Rams, 2005 Colts, 2007 Patriots, how about the 1998 Vikings?
these are all great teams. But give me the 2004 Patriots, 2005 Steelers, 2006 Colts, the Lombardi Packers anyday. Well balanced teams with heart that find a way to win...

Oh, for crying out loud. The 1998 Vikings were 6th in the NFL in defense, and lost by 3 points to a 14-2 Falcons team. In 1985, 10 loss Villanova took the Championship by beating Georgetown after losing to them twice in the regular season. Season vs. team. Since you can't, or won't, accept that there's a difference, continuing this discussion is useless.