2006 statistical comparison to 2003/4

[aabtec]

There have been two posts that have aggravated me today:




Without a doubt, these are misconceptions. I would like to address these.

As many of you already, I'm a firm believer in "a win is a win" and a team's record determining its status in the league (is that not how the entire system works?) Therefore, with the 2006 Patriots' record the way it is at 4 losses, it will be impossible for it to match that of the 2003 and 2004 Patriots at 2 losses.

Human tendency is to inflate the achievements of the past while downplaying the achievements of the present. For example, we may think back to January 2005, remember that dominating 20-3 win over the Colts in the dusk snow of the Razor, and say "the 2006 Patriots haven't been able to do that." This game, along with other exciting playoff wins, is played on a win-or-go-home stage where these achievements are most remembered.

Lost in the past are games such as the shootout win against the Bengals, or the loss in Miami to a team with the exact opposite record as the Pats, or a humiliating shutout loss in Buffalo. They're forgotten when we recall the past. However, when similar situations occur in the present, such as a shootout win against the Lions, or a humiliating shutout loss in Miami, these performances are scrutinized. Observations of the game spawn dire predictions and "this isn't the same team as 2003/4" statements. Human nature.

I'm never a fan of putting a "label" on a team, such as "Super Bowl caliber" or "quality opponent." These are made purely out of personal satisfaction with a particular team or opponent.

So when we take a statistical approach to see where these teams actually stack up against each other, even I get caught up in personal, rather pointless evaluations. However, the whole concept of stats and rankings places these 3 teams (2006, 2004, 2003) on equal footing, and in comparison to the competition they face (i.e. rankings) on the road to a championship.

Without droning on any further, here is my rebuttal to those that believe the 2006 offense is anemic and can't hold a candle to the "infallible" offenses of 2003 and 2004: (this was posted in another thread)

2006 offense:

Passing yards/game: 14th (most)
Passing TDs: 9th (most)
INTs: 11th (least)
Sacks: 11th (least)
Rushing yards/game: 13th (most)
Rushing TDs: 5th (most)
Scoring offense: 9th (best)
Offensive time of possession: 7th (best)
Total offensive yards/game: 13th (most)

2004 offense:

Passing yards/game: 11th (most)
Passing TDs: 6th (most)
INTs: 12th (least)
Sacks: 5th (least)
Rushing yards/game: 7th (most)
Rushing TDs: 9th (most)
Scoring offense: 4th (best)
Offensive time of possession: 7th (best)
Total offensive yards/game: 7th (most)

2003 offense:

Passing yards/game: 9th (most)
Passing TDs: 12th (most)
INTs: 6th (least)
Sacks: 14th (least)
Rushing yards/game: 27th (most)
Rushing TDs: 25th (most)
Scoring offense: 12th (best)
Offensive time of possession: 11th (best)
Total offensive yards/game: 17th (most)

...

Rankings:

Best to worst by rankings:

Passing yards/game: 2003, 2004, 2006
Passing TDs: 2004, 2006, 2003
INTs: 2003, 2006, 2004
Sacks: 2004, 2006, 2003
Rushing yards/game: 2004, 2006, 2003
Rushing TDs: 2006, 2004, 2003
Scoring offense: 2004, 2006, 2003
Offensive time of possession: 2004/6 tie, 2003
Total offensive yards/game: 2004, 2006, 2003

2004: 6 first place, 2 second place, 1 third place
2006: 2 first place, 6 second place, 1 third place
2003: 2 first place, 0 second place, 7 third place

The 2006 offense is worse than a Super Bowl winning team, yet better than a Super Bowl winning team.

Therefore, no one can say this isn't a "Super Bowl caliber" offense.

...

2006 Defense:

3rd down conversion percentage: 11th (best)
4th down conversion percentage: 4th (best)
Defensive time of possession: 7th (least)
Passing yards/game: 13th (least)
Passing TDs: 1st (least)
INTs: 3rd (most)
Sacks: 8th (most)
Rushing yards/game: 4th (least)
Rushing TDs: 6th (least)
Points/game: 2nd (least)
Total defensive yards/game: 6th (least)

2004 Defense:

3rd down conversion percentage: 21th (best)
4th down conversion percentage: 14th (best)
Defensive time of possession: 7th (least)
Passing yards/game: 17th (least)
Passing TDs: 9th (least)
INTs: 7th (most)
Sacks: 4th (most)
Rushing yards/game: 6th (least)
Rushing TDs: 8th (least)
Points/game: 2nd (least)
Total defensive yards/game: 9th (least)

2003 Defense:

3rd down conversion percentage: 7th (best)
4th down conversion percentage: 7th (best)
Defensive time of possession: 11th (least)
Passing yards/game: 15th (least)
Passing TDs: 1st (least)
INTs: 1st (most)
Sacks: 6th (most)
Rushing yards/game: 4th (least)
Rushing TDs: 7th (least)
Points/game: 1st (least)
Total defensive yards/game: 7th (least)

Rankings:

Best to worst by rankings:

3rd down conversion percentage: 2003, 2006, 2004
4th down conversion percentage: 2006, 2003, 2004
Defensive time of possession: 2004/6 tie, 2003
Passing yards/game: 2006, 2003, 2004
Passing TDs: 2003/6 tie, 2004
INTs: 2003, 2006, 2004
Sacks: 2004, 2003, 2006
Rushing yards/game: 2003/6 tie, 2004
Rushing TDs: 2006, 2003, 2004
Points/game: 2003, 2004/6 tie
Total defensive yards/game: 2006, 2003, 2004

2006: 7 first place, 3 second place, 1 third place
2003: 5 first place, 5 second place, 1 third place
2004: 2 first place, 1 second place, 8 third place

The 2006 defense is better than that of two Super Bowl winning teams.

...

Total Rankings:

2006: 9 first place, 9 second place, 2 third place
2004: 8 first place, 3 second place, 9 third place
2003: 7 first place, 5 second place, 8 third place

...

Take it for what it's worth, as the 2003 and 2004 teams still hold better records, but statistically the 2006 Patriots hold a combined advantage over the 2003 and 2004 teams in 20 important categories.

We'll let January and February decide if the 2006 Patriots truly match up against their Lombardi-hoisting predecessors. If so, this 2006 team would be, by the statistical categories listed above, the best of the Super Bowl winning teams.

For the love of Mary..enough with the damned stats...there are lies, damn lies and then stats....

stats will not catch a pass..stats will not adjust a pass route....stats will not catch a slant pattern...

talk about beating a dead horse...

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I like stats as much as anyone on this board but according to my eyeball test this team is not as good as the 2003/2004 teams.

The 2003 team went 7-0 against teams that ended up with +.500 records. Heck, that team went 7-0 against teams that ended up with at least 10 wins. The 2004 team went 7-1 against teams that ended up with +.500 records. That 2004 team went 3-1 against teams that ended up with at least 10 wins.

If the 2006 team is as good as the 2003/2004 teams, then why does the 2006 team trail those teams in the most important stat - wins??

The 2006 team has as many regular season losses as did the 2003/2004 teams combined.

I think the stats research was great. Certainly was an eye-opener.

But for some reason I, and I think others as well, subjectively lack the confidence in this years' team that at least I had in previous SB runs, '03 & '04. Why is that? I think your 'strength of wins' point may be salient.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Right on. That Brady INT after Adam missed the kick still haunts me. I really thought the Pats were going to win that one.

First, I like Faulk.
Second, I'd put 50% on Faulk for tiping the high (50%) Brady pass.
I posted that Faulk had a history of tiped passed fot INTs when thrown to over the middle. Faulk is 5' 7". I really think that Brady is smart enough to be effectively coached to throw LOW to Faulk. Bad things have happened more than once.

 

[pats1]

For the love of Mary..enough with the damned stats...there are lies, damn lies and then stats....

stats will not catch a pass..stats will not adjust a pass route....stats will not catch a slant pattern...

talk about beating a dead horse...

If you'd like me to compare the on-field scheming, I'll do that too. I've done it before. In fact, I attempted to address some misconceptions in that post too last November:

- The Colts have made improvements on defense that make it in the top 5 in the league; it is a defense on a totally different level from 2004.

- The Patriots are having a “lousy” season and they are no longer capable of winning through the playoffs.

- Injuries for the Patriots aren't an excuse – they are losing because of incompensable losses.

- The 2005 Patriots would be incapable of winning in the RCA Dome despite the performance in the playoffs, outdoors, at Heinz Field last season

- The Colts were able to beat the Patriots in Foxboro, proving the two teams have switched positions and created a wider gap.

- The Patriots defense is too drastically different from last season to beat the Colts again, especially on the road.


(Sigh...without that one nightmarish night in Denver last January, everything could be different)

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I just voted 5 stars for this thread. An excellent example of stats (Pats1) and the issues beside the stats (Miguel).

I agree with the poster who said that the Jagwads game will be a nice indicator of the 2006 team.

 

[pats1]

I think the stats research was great. Certainly was an eye-opener.

Precisely what I was trying to accomplish. Thank you.

But for some reason I, and I think others as well, subjectively lack the confidence in this years' team that at least I had in previous SB runs, '03 & '04. Why is that? I think your 'strength of wins' point may be salient.

But as I've said before, when it comes down to 60 minutes in January, one team isn't wearing a badge on their chests reading "We beat more 'quality' teams than you."

 

[cstjohn17]

I like stats as much as anyone on this board but according to my eyeball test this team is not as good as the 2003/2004 teams.

The 2003 team went 7-0 against teams that ended up with +.500 records. Heck, that team went 7-0 against teams that ended up with at least 10 wins. The 2004 team went 7-1 against teams that ended up with +.500 records. That 2004 team went 3-1 against teams that ended up with at least 10 wins.

If the 2006 team is as good as the 2003/2004 teams, then why does the 2006 team trail those teams in the most important stat - wins??

The 2006 team has as many regular season losses as did the 2003/2004 teams combined.

First, thank you Pats1 for putting this together.

I am with Miguel 100%, although not scientific the eyeball test and clutch factor do not appear to be as strong in 2006. The 2006 team is strong but has still dropped off from the 2003 & 2004 teams in the most important stat, wins. And more specifically wins translating into home field advantage, the championship teams did enough to secure a bye giving them a huge statistical advantage to make the Superbowl.

I did a breakdown on Brady's projected numbers for 2006, they show him having his worst year and for the first time in 5 years the numbers dropoff instead of improve.

Your breakdown puts in perspective that they are a good team but based on what I see on the field I am not convinced that they are anywhere near as good as the 03 or 04 teams. Again nice work, but I am not convinced.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Lots of great stuff in this thread, although I haven't read *every* single post. If what I've written below is a repeat of what others have written, I apologize in advance...

My take is that the 2006 defense is outstanding and am not surprised at all that it measures up against the SB winning Ds statistically. I think the 2006 offense is excellent on the ground and decent through the air, but turns the ball over too often and can be gameplanned against more easily than the 2003 & 2004 editions thanks to the WR situation. However, even with the perceived warts on offense, I think this team could have won SB38 & 39.

I think the biggest difference between 2003/2004 & 2006 is that the top dogs in the AFC have gotten better. Probably the biggest threat to the Pats' last two titles was the 2003 Titans. That team was the most balanced team that could not have been undermined by its QB or coach. The 2004 Steelers are probably next on the list thanks to excellent defense and a solid offense, BUT Rothlisberger was a liability come playoff time that the Pats could (and did) exploit. The 2003 & 2004 Colts were all offense and no defense and wilted in the Foxboro cold.

If you look at some of the possible playoff teams in 2006, they are arguably better than *all* of the previous playoff opponents. San Diego and Baltimore have better front-sevens than 2004 Pittsburgh and Baltimore's secondary is at least as good as 2004 Pittsburgh's. San Diego's offense could come undone if somehow the game was forced into Rivers' hands, but he hasn't shown the decline that Rothlisberger showed in late 2004. Baltimore isn't getting outstanding QB play, but I doubt McNair will throw a playoff game away. I think both San Diego and Baltimore are better than any playoff team the Pats have beaten in the prior 3 seasons. Indy's D with Bob Sanders playing is better than the 2003 and 2004 editions. Indy's offense is might not be at its 2004 peak, but it's still one of the tops in the league.

One can argue whether or not the Pats are in decline from their SB years, but I think it's tough to argue that the top of the AFC isn't better than 2003 & 2004. I think the 2003 & 2004 Pats would have their hands full with this year's playoff field.

Regards,
Chris

 

[pats1]

I just voted 5 stars for this thread. An excellent example of stats (Pats1) and the issues beside the stats (Miguel).

Exactly. And there are plenty of them. That's why I strayed away from the actual stats themselves, and rather went with their rankings to the rest of the league. Variables are indeed abundant.

I prefer the rankings they demonstrate how a team matched up to its competition. It's that competition and nothing else the team has to go through to win a championship.

In terms of its competition, the 2003/4 teams dominated it in many phases of the game. The 2006 has dominated it to a relatively greater extent. The misconception is the 2006 Patriots haven't done just that.

 

[Miguel]

Looking at the losses :

Denver and Miami, they're just tough matchups for us, they always have been even in the SB winning years.

The 2003 team went 3-0 against Miami and Denver. The 2004 team went 1-1 against Miami. The 2004 team lost 29-28 after beating the Dolphins earlier in the year 24-10. The 2006 team went 1-2 against Miami and Denver beating Miami 20-10 and then losing to them 21-0. To sum up, the 2003/2004 teams had a 4-1 record against Miami and Denver with its one loss coming by one point. The 2006 team went 1-2 against Miami and Denver while being outplayed in the 2 losses. Saying that Miami and Denver are alway tough matchups for the Patriots does not explain the huge difference in the records.

NYJ and Colts - largely turnovers. We mostly outplayed the Jets but had a couple of critical turnovers. The Colts game was fairly even, despite losing Harrison on the 3rd defensive play, but, again, turnovers.

Let's accept your premise that turnovers was the reason that the Pats lost those two games. Why is the 2006 team more prone to turnovers than were the 2003/2004 teams???.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Why is the 2006 team more prone to turnovers than were the 2003/2004 teams???.

If I knew the answer I'd be making big bucks as an advisor to the Pats and other folks.

 

[Miguel]

Yeah, that's what happens when I try to recall a month-old argument.

http://www.profootball-reference.com is a wonderful site.

But it still doesn't support the case (not necessarily yours) that the Pats' struggles against 'winning' teams this year will translate to an early exit.

The 2001 Patriots were a special team so I do not like to compare other teams against them stats-wise.

 

[Miguel]

If I knew the answer I'd be making big bucks as an advisor to the Pats and other folks.

So true.

Another question is why does this team only have one return TD.

 

[BelichickFan]

The 2003 team went 3-0 against Miami and Denver.

That may be but you know as well as I do that they're a tough matchup. And, be honest, they wouldn't win that game against Denver very often. That was a game that, when it ended, you knew you got away with one.

Let's accept your premise that turnovers was the reason that the Pats lost those two games. Why is the 2006 team more prone to turnovers than were the 2003/2004 teams???.

Probably a little bit has been new players. And a little bit of Brady feeling he has to force the ball. But some is just bad play. Before this year Watson had 1 fumble in 31 career catches. This year he has 3 in 49.

Why was Brady's throw to Faulk that was tipped for the game ender vs. Indy a few inches high ? I don't know. It wasn't because Faulk is a new player. Just one of those things. And one pass off by two inches may be the difference between a 3 and a 4 loss team right now.

 

[BelichickFan]

Another question is why does this team only have one return TD.

Again, just one of those things. We are third in the league in INTs (defensively) and have returned none for TDs. Another year, maybe later this year, a few will go back.

 

[pats1]

Let's accept your premise that turnovers was the reason that the Pats lost those two games. Why is the 2006 team more prone to turnovers than were the 2003/2004 teams???.

Younger. Less experienced. Many new faces. Lots of comings and goings.

I drool at the thought of the days when Mankins/Koppen/Kaczur/O'Callaghan/Etc. are all a mature, experienced group protecting Brady and paving way for a stud RB Maroney.

 

[pats1]

So true.

Another question is why does this team only have one return TD.

If you mean kick/punt returns, the 2004 team had 1 combined. The 2003 team also had 1 combined. The 2006 team has 1 combined.

If you mean INT returns, the 2003 team had 5 for TDs. The 2004 team had 1. The 2006 team has 0. I wouldn't put much stock into that stat.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I just voted 5 stars for this thread. An excellent example of stats (Pats1) and the issues beside the stats (Miguel).

Or in other words, the fallacy of relying too heavilly on stats. This team, to date, has not played as well as our Super Bowl contending teams. Not even close.

But if you look at the stats - and not the games themselves, including the caliber of play - you can fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

 

[JoeSixPat]

So true.

Another question is why does this team only have one return TD.

Or how about 0 defensive TDs... that's an even bigger number for me. NEM pointed that out the other day and I was shocked, but he's right.

And that's on a Defense that's playing very WELL!

 

[Ring 6]

Here's my rebuttal to your rebuttal. In four quarters of football, the New England Patriots offense never even got in long field goal range against the Miami Dolphins.

Look, I don't like it any better than anyone else. But, the simple fact of the matter is that any good defense can shut this year's Patriots' offense down cold.

You gave one example of that. If I said we were the only team to gain over 300 yards against the Bears and concluded no good defense can stop us, isnt that the same thing?