2004 team would have beaten 2007 any day of the week

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Go back to 2004. Indy was still a sissy team with zero playoff toughness and Pitt barely beat NYJ at home in the divisional. Roeth was brutal.

07 JAX played the Pats TOUGH in the div and beat Pitt on the road the prior week.

07 SD beats the defending SB champ on the road with Michael Turner filling in. SD was not a pushover.

The Colts had beaten Denver in the wild card round 49-24. They were 12-4, would've been 13-3 if they didn't tank the final regular season game. And IIRC they were favored to beat us on our field in the divisional round. Their offense is among the best in NFL history.

SD wasn't a pushover but beating them at home is alot easier than walking into Heinz field to face a 15-1 team.

 

[Deus Irae]

2007 > 2004

 

[Lifer]

I will give you that for the first 10 weeks of the 2007 season that Patriot team was as awesome as any team id ever seen. But for the last 6 games and the playoffs they had the look of a team holding on. The 2004 team was a team that just faced every challenge and when they did have their two slips went out the following week and kicked ass. The biggest differences were Corey Dillon and the 2004 defense vs Maroney and the 2007 defense. And the bottom line is when it was time to play like a champion the 2007 team played its worst game in the biggest game.
Btw, earlier someone listed 2011 as better than 2001. If there is a big game to be played give me the 2001 team and that defense and special teams over last years team who as soon as Welker dropped that ball i knew we were going to lose because of our defense.

 

[Deus Irae]

I will give you that for the first 10 weeks of the 2007 season that Patriot team was as awesome as any team id ever seen. But for the last 6 games and the playoffs they had the look of a team holding on. The 2004 team was a team that just faced every challenge and when they did have their two slips went out the following week and kicked ass.

2007 had one "slip" all season long. It was in the Super Bowl, with Brady/Faulk/Brady/Neal/Morris/etc... all injured and/or out. They put 38 up against the Giants the first time they'd faced them. They outscored their last 6 opponents of the season by an average of more than 10 ppg.

The biggest differences were Corey Dillon and the 2004 defense vs Maroney and the 2007 defense. And the bottom line is when it was time to play like a champion the 2007 team played its worst game in the biggest game.
Btw, earlier someone listed 2011 as better than 2001. If there is a big game to be played give me the 2001 team and that defense and special teams over last years team who as soon as Welker dropped that ball i knew we were going to lose because of our defense.

The biggest difference was the health of the team in the final game.

 

[PatsGirl2011]

I will give you that for the first 10 weeks of the 2007 season that Patriot team was as awesome as any team id ever seen. But for the last 6 games and the playoffs they had the look of a team holding on. The 2004 team was a team that just faced every challenge and when they did have their two slips went out the following week and kicked ass. The biggest differences were Corey Dillon and the 2004 defense vs Maroney and the 2007 defense. And the bottom line is when it was time to play like a champion the 2007 team played its worst game in the biggest game.
Btw, earlier someone listed 2011 as better than 2001. If there is a big game to be played give me the 2001 team and that defense and special teams over last years team who as soon as Welker dropped that ball i knew we were going to lose because of our defense.

Agreed! The first 10 games were some of the funniest times as a Pats fan since 2002 SB. It was so enjoyable to watch. The last 9 games were not enjoyable, but it felt as if they were playing to hold on to history. They had so much pressure on them from Spygate and being on national TV nearly every week. I don't think I missed a Pats game that year even in Bills country that's how much they were on national TV. I wasn't shocked they lost the SB. I was surprised, but they were teetering on the edge of defeat so often the second half of the season the inevitable was around the corner. The 2004 was more balanced, and I think that was the difference especially going in the playoffs.

 

[randomk1]

Why are some people making this out to be a huge stretch?

The 04 team was basically the same D in it's prime and with the added bonus of having an actual running game + better coaches and while the receivers might have not have been Moss they got the job done. They are easily one of the top 10-5 champions of all time,won "21" straight,back to back SB titles.

When it mattered the most then the 07 pats weren't even the best team that year and after the tuck rule+Vinatieri through the blizzard it's really hard to ***** about another team catching a break even though i try to.

 

[1960Pats]

Are they hypothetically playing under pre-2005 or post-2004 "points of emphasis"? Because if they're playing with the post-2004 rules, the 2007 team would win easily.

I would really like to see the Pats run the ball more no matter what the rules are. Even just the threat of a run opens up the passing game. The Troy Polamalu's of the world are easy pickings when the Pats run the ball.

Wouldn't it be funny if the Pats went on another SB run and all the losers got together (again) on the competition committee and changed the "points of emphasis" back to where they were? I'd enjoy that.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

When it mattered the most then the 07 pats weren't even the best team that year and after the tuck rule+Vinatieri through the blizzard it's really hard to ***** about another team catching a break even though i try to.

Plus people tend to ignore that we caught a couple breaks ourselves in that game. A fluke bounce off a Giants WR and straight into Ellis Hobbs' hands cost them at least 3 points early on after a good drive. And we caught another huge break the first drive after halftime when we're punting and one of their guys didn't get off the field in time, resulting in a penalty and prolonging our drive. Two unforced turnovers essentially that we benefitted from. But the only breaks that get talked about are the ones on the final drive. Fact is if the 2007 Patriots were truly the greatest team of all time, they wouldn't have been IN that position to lose it on the last drive. The Giants dominated the battle in the trenches and beat us straight up, some still have trouble accepting that.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Plus people tend to ignore that we caught a couple breaks ourselves in that game. A fluke bounce off a Giants WR and straight into Ellis Hobbs' hands cost them at least 3 points early on after a good drive. And we caught another huge break the first drive after halftime when we're punting and one of their guys didn't get off the field in time, resulting in a penalty and prolonging our drive. Two unforced turnovers essentially that we benefitted from. But the only breaks that get talked about are the ones on the final drive. Fact is if the 2007 Patriots were truly the greatest team of all time, they wouldn't have been IN that position to lose it on the last drive. The Giants dominated the battle in the trenches and beat us straight up, some still have trouble accepting that.

Folks need to stop. The 2007 Pats were a great team but not the GoAT.

To even be in the discussion with teams like the 72 Fins, 78 Steelers, 84 49ers, 85 Bears, 89 49ers, 93 Cowboys, 04 Pats you need to close out your season.

Fair or unfair, they didn't do that.

 

[captain stone]

2004 > 2007

Fixed it for ya.

 

[Lifer]

What matters when judging the greatest teams ever is how you played when it mattered most. The 2007 Patriots didnt play a great super bowl and just fell a tad short. They played a pretty crappy game except for the one drive when they took the lead. When it mattered most the 2004 team always played its best. And someone mentioned injuries. Does anyone remember the secondary situation in 2004?

 

[Deus Irae]

What matters when judging the greatest teams ever is how you played when it mattered most. The 2007 Patriots didnt play a great super bowl and just fell a tad short. They played a pretty crappy game except for the one drive when they took the lead. When it mattered most the 2004 team always played its best. And someone mentioned injuries. Does anyone remember the secondary situation in 2004?

Nonsense. What matters is how good the team was. That's why the question isn't "Which team played better in the Super Bowl?".

 

[NSPF]

Nonsense. What matters is how good the team was. That's why the question isn't "Which team played better in the Super Bowl?".

That's a very good way of putting it, and I agree with you. Some people, however, are very passionate that the one and only way of judging a team is by whether or not they won a championship. I generally find that the odds of reasoning with them are very small, despite the fact that it can be shown very simply that such a method of judgment is flawed, especially when comparing between seasons.

 

[PatsfanCP]

the 04 team would have beat the giants by a couple tds but the 07 team offense is the best.

 

[Shockt327]

Well, what do you like more? A higher ceiling or stronger foundation?

The 04 team had a much stronger foundation.

Streaks? Eh, I'll take the group that helped win 21 straight over 18 straight...

 

[SyN65]

2 mins separates the 07 team from being the best of all time

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

It would have been fun to see the 2007 Offense go against the 2004 Defense.

Yeah

Moss/Welker/Stallworth//Gaffney vs Randall Gay and Earthwind Moreland.....

LOL

This is an even bigger idiot thread than the Welker compilations.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

The Colts had beaten Denver in the wild card round 49-24. They were 12-4, would've been 13-3 if they didn't tank the final regular season game. And IIRC they were favored to beat us on our field in the divisional round. Their offense is among the best in NFL history.

SD wasn't a pushover but beating them at home is alot easier than walking into Heinz field to face a 15-1 team.

No it wasn't.

 

[Shockt327]

Yeah

Moss/Welker/Stallworth//Gaffney vs Randall Gay and Earthwind Moreland.....

LOL

This is an even bigger idiot thread than the Welker compilations.

That's funny, I believe your own comment applies to your own criticism...

You make it sound as though the 04 secondary could never stop the 07 Pats passing attack. Yet, this was the same nonsense we heard when the 2004 Colts -- a record setting O, much like the 07 Pats pass attack -- were coming to play the divisional round. Yet, they beat that Colts passing attack...twice.

So Yeah, if Asante, Randall and Troy can beat Marvin/Reggie/Stokley/Clark/Edgerin. Than they could beat Moss/Welker/Gaff/Stallworth. Mostly because the front 7 was just awesome.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

That's funny, I believe your own comment applies to your own criticism...

You make it sound as though the 04 secondary could never stop the 07 Pats passing attack. Yet, this was the same nonsense we heard when the 2004 Colts -- a record setting O, much like the 07 Pats pass attack -- were coming to play the divisional round. Yet, they beat that Colts passing attack...twice.

So Yeah, if Asante, Randall and Troy can beat Marvin/Reggie/Stokley/Clark/Edgerin. Than they could beat Moss/Welker/Gaff/Stallworth. Mostly because the front 7 was just awesome.

Ahhh no

You seem to be confused by the fact that Manning/Wayne/Harrison/Clarke are the same people as Brady/Moss/Welker/Stallworth.

They are actually different people/ players that were on different teams.