Welcome to PatsFans.com

2005 vs. 2007

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by brdmaverick, Mar 14, 2007.

?

Which group would you rather have?

  1. D.Branch/D.Givens/W.McGinest/C.Dillon/D.Graham heading into 2005

    10 vote(s)
    45.5%
  2. D.Stallworth/W.Welker/A.Thomas/S.Morris/K.Brady heading into 2007

    12 vote(s)
    54.5%
  1. brdmaverick

    brdmaverick Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    #32 Jersey

    There is much reason for optimism surrounding the outlook of the 2007 New England Patriots season. While I share this same optimistic feeling I have a feeling that some of us are getting carried away. We shouldn't be booking Super Bowl tickets just yet.

    The point that I want to make is to compare some of our losses since the 2005 season to the gains of their 'replacments' this season.

    After looking at these two groups as a whole, I actually felt better about our chances with the 2005 group heading into that year than I do about our 2007 group heading into this year.

    I realize that there are other X-factors that will create the identity of this team, such as the fact that young guys have had two more years to mature and develop their games (ie. Ty Warren, Asante Samuel, Vince Wilfork, Ben Watson etc.). But to offset that there have been players who are getting older or now have health concerns (Tedy Bruschi, Rodney Harrison, Troy Brown) or are less effective (Eugene Wilson).


    So, just looking at it from the handful of guys that I have in the poll, which group would you rather have going into that ONE season.........

    D.Branch/D.Givens/W.McGinest/C.Dillon/D.Graham heading into 2005

    or

    D.Stallworth/W.Welker/A.Thomas/S.Morris/K.Brady heading into 2007


    to get to the point....my feeling is that I was more confident in our team with the 2005 group heading into the '05 season, and that team didn't win a Super Bowl, so don't book your Super Bowl tickets just yet.
  2. makewayhomer

    makewayhomer Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,030
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    2005 was derailed by a whole bunch of injuries.
  3. brdmaverick

    brdmaverick Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,085
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    #32 Jersey

    I should also note that the intention of my post is not to say that we should have kept all the guys from the 2005 group I have listed. Turnover is inevitable when you can only pay so much to so many guys.

    The Patriots did their best to find replacements for these guys.

    I just want to make a point that the Patriots shouldn't be a lock to win the Super Bowl. They also shouldn't be expected to go 16-0 as suggested in another post.
  4. Pat_the_Patriot

    Pat_the_Patriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Good points... I'm glad that you mentioned the X factor, but I'm surprised at how close it is...to me, I would rather have Graham than Brady and 2005 Dillon than 2007 Morris, BUT I would rather have Stallworth than Branch, Thomas than McG, and Welker than Givens.

    So, I guess that I'd rather have the 2007 crowd (and that's how I voted).... BUT, it is closer than I would have guessed.

    Good post.
  5. AzPatsFan

    AzPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    6,009
    Likes Received:
    69
    Ratings:
    +139 / 10 / -8

    Not the way you stacked the deck.

    For example:

    Would I rather have Corey or Morris, is really would I rather have Corey & Pass & KF...Or would I rather have LM & Morris & KF & Evans?

    Would I rather have McG & Vrabel & no Tedy, (stroke) & maybe no Rosey, (hip) .... Or would I rather have AD & Tedy & Rosey & Vrabel?

    I'll take 2007 by a country mile as that is depth issue true throughout the roster. The 2007 team is very deep everywhere except at reserve LB, and the whole story isn't in yet, there. There is still money for a couple of ex-vet LB starters, and the draft looks to have prime Patriots 3-4 beef at LB for a change. That Lb talent will be there at the Pats draft positions, and other needs are now filled.

    In spite of this boards obsession with the secondary, we are arguing of improving the 5th CB or 7th S. I suspect those "needs" can be addressed other than in the first round,or even of Day 2.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2007
  6. TomBrady'sGoat

    TomBrady'sGoat Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I voted your 2005 option but think the 2007 team is much better.

    I'll take 2007 warren/wilfork as a huge upgrade over their 2005 versions.
    I'll take the 2007 offensive line as a whole.
    I'll take 2007 Buschi (he might not have much left but at lest he'll be playing) and Colvin over 2005.
    I'll take 2007 Asante and 2007 Watson.
    I'll take Maroney over whoever you want to say he replaced. Heck I'll take Maroney over 2005 Dillon since that was the year he fell off.
    I'll take whoever NE drafts this year. they're basically a free addition because you already factor in all guys lost but can't factor in guys we haven't added yet.
    I'll even take Jackson over Bethel :)

    Now who would I rather have 2005 versions of?

    Vrabel, Faulk, Troy... I'm thinking here. Harrison was hurt so that eliminates him from this list. I'll take Vin over Gost though that's no knock on Gost.

    Basically, my point is that the question is too narrow and misleading.
  7. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    22,178
    Likes Received:
    86
    Ratings:
    +290 / 13 / -8

    How are you using Morris to replace Dillon. Did you miss that we have Lawrence Maroney?
    Where is the factor for the things that killed the 2005 team? Beisel and Chad Brown inside while Bruschi missed half the year? Duane Starks at cb? Harrision, Light, Koppen and others injured?
    You limited WR to 2 guys. While it is debatable whether that is an improvement or not, you leave out Caldwell, gaffney, Jackson and Washington, clear upgrades from what he had behind Givens and Branch.

    It seems you skipped 2006 happening, when we improved from 10-6 and out in the the 2nd round to 12-4 and a couple of minutes from the SB.

    We got better after losing the guys we lost from 2005, why are we starting from there?
  8. bradmahn

    bradmahn Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,008
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    No offense to the creator, but, for the aforementioned reasons I feel this thread and poll are fairly ridiculous.

    It's just difficult to compare the two situations in a vacuum. Going into '05 I thought Dillon would have another 1000 yard season, he had 1600 the year before, so why not? Going into '07 I think that Maroney will have a 1000 yard season, and Morris, Evans and Faulk are all better than the aggregate group of back ups that year. I feel that Stallworth has the potential to be better than Branch, but until we see the way he produces in the Pats offense we don't know. I don't think the Welker/ Givens comparison is appropriate, I think it's more a comparison of Givens and Caldwell, and I see no reason why Caldwell isn't as good or better as a receiver. I also see the group of TEs of '07 (Brady, Thomas, Watson) as better than Graham, Fauria, and Watson in '05. And heading into '05 it had been a decade since McGinnest had achieved 10+ sacks, Thomas did it last year. I think Thomas is an improvement (in certain aspects) over McGinnest. It's difficult to draw comparisons to the two situations because of the the other reasons surrounding the team, but those guys from '05 had also been here for a while, and the ones you project for '07 are all first year Pats who have the potential to be better than their '05 "counterparts."
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2007

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>