2006 statistical comparison to 2003/4

[pats1]

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.

What's your measure of caliber of play?

If it's completely objective, then sure. Knock yourself out.

If it's measured by domination over an opponent - say, margin of victory...

2006 - 19 points
2004 - 14 points
2003 - 10 points

Or is it margin of loss?

2004 - 8 points
2006 - 10 points
2003 - 17 points

 

[pats1]

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!

Sure, defensive scoring is an added bonus, but I'd rather have more turnovers and less scores than less turnovers and more scores.

The takeaway/game numbers are very even between the three teams:

2006 - 2.21
2004 - 2.25
2003 - 2.56

 

[pats1]

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

Brilliant post, as always Chris. I couldn't have said it better. I agree with every point.

 

[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.

Here lies my problem with these stats. The 2003 Pats led the league in the one stat that really matters - wins. The 2004 Pats trailed only one team in the number of wins. The 2006 team trails 4 teams in the number of wins. I have just a hard time reconciling that stat with the notion that the 2006 team has dominated its competition to a relatively greater extent than did the 2003/2004 teams.

 

[pats1]

Here lies my problem with these stats. The 2003 Pats led the league in the one stat that really matters - wins. The 2004 Pats trailed only one team in the number of wins. The 2006 team trails 4 teams in the number of wins. I have just a hard time reconciling that stat with the notion that the 2006 team has dominated its competition to a relatively greater extent than did the 2003/2004 teams.

I think the best way to answer that is to snip a piece from Chris' post:

"I think the 2003 & 2004 Pats would have their hands full with this year's playoff field."

These are certainly arguable points, but I'll still use them:

1) The 2006 AFC is tougher than the 2003/4 AFC
2) The 2006 Patriots have a greater margin of victory than the 2003/4 teams and a smaller margin of loss than the 2003 team
3) The 2006 Patriots, in terms of their competition (rankings), generally fare statistically better than the 2003/4 teams

Again, comparing teams between years isn't an exact science at all. You have to work with what you have.

I'm a firm believer in wins speaking a great deal about a team. It comes down to this, (deja vu?) though:

What team is better?

A) 12-4 team that, considering the three points above, wins a Super Bowl
or
B) 14-2 team that, considering the three points above, wins a Super Bowl

 

[Miguel]

What's your measure of caliber of play?

If it's completely objective, then sure. Knock yourself out.

If it's measured by domination over an opponent - say, margin of victory...

2006 - 19 points
2004 - 14 points
2003 - 10 points

The problem with the above stat is that the 2004 teams beat 7 teams that ended up with at least 10 wins. Beating teams of that quality that many times is much more difficult that beating the 2006 Packers or the 2006 Texans.

Or is it margin of loss?

2004 - 8 points
2006 - 10 points
2003 - 17 points

The problem with that stat is that the 2003 team had one huge loss - the opening day loss to the Bills which greatly skews its average. The fewer losses, the more one loss impacts the average. The 2006 team did not have one of its captains released days before the season started.

 

[pats1]

The problem with the above stat is that the 2004 teams beat 7 teams that ended up with at least 10 wins. Beating teams of that quality that many times is much more difficult that beating the 2006 Packers or the 2006 Texans.

For every 2006 Packers or 2006 Texans or 2006 Lions or 2006 Vikings, there's a 2004 Cardinals or 2004 49ers or 2004 Browns or 2004 Dolphins.

For every 2006 Bears or 2006 Bengals or 2006 Jets or 2006 Bills, there's a 2004 Colts or 2004 Jets or 2004 Seahawks or 2004 Bills.

The problem with that stat is that the 2003 team had one huge loss - the opening day loss to the Bills which greatly skews its average. The fewer losses, the more one loss impacts the average. The 2006 team did not have one of its captains released days before the season started.

The 2006 team also had one big loss (21-0) that skews its average. Their other losses came by 3, 7, and 10 points.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

Those really are the correct questions to be answered.

One thing, the 2003 I think was 10-0 against 10 win teams including the playoffs.

POTENTIAL ANSWERS
1) The 2006 team isnt as good as the 03/04 teams.
The answer has to be yes, because the only gauge is winning. But when the numbers suggest OVERALL they are as good (or close) the answer may be they are not as CONSISTENT. You can have a bad day and manage to win, or not, and the numbers may look similar. Also, you can play better most of the time, but worse a few more times, and 14-2 becomes 12-4 or 11-5 by playing better in 8-10 games and worse in only 2 or 3.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The 2006 team DOESNT HAVE TO BE AS GOOD AS 03/04. I think those teams we the 2 best teams in the NFL over a number of years, and there have been few SB winners in this era that were as good.

2) Playing equally as well and winning as often are not the same thing.
One thing all Patriots fans should have learned by now is that what separates teams at and above the 10 win level is primarily how they play in the clutch. Making the one, or 2 or 3 plays that determine a game doesnt necessarily show up as a big difference in stats. But teams that are good and not clutch are contenders. Teams that are good AND clutch are Champions. That is hard to measure by stats.

My opinion has always been that teams change dramatically from year to year, especially in the area of being clutch. I also believe that HC, QB, and defensive nucleus are 3 of the biggest factors in that, but everyone who steps on the field makes a difference in your ability to 'be clutch'.
I think this factor alone would have seen the 03/04 Pats beat both Indy and the Jets. Watching both of those games through the eyes of the 03/04 Pats, the game was playing right into our hands, and it was just a matter of time. This year that time never came.
I think if we look at records in comparing the 03/04 teams to the 06, those 2 games ARE the difference. The similarities outside of those 2 in regard to who we beat, who we lose to, winning big or winning close, looking bad and winning, or looking good and winning are very close.

3) The competition is better.
This is a possible answer, but I see nothing to support it.

4) The talent level has declined.
I think we can rule out QB, OL, TE, DL right off the bat. At the other positions, RB is much better than 03, and I'd say equal to 04 (Dillon has slipped but Maroney adds) at LB, I'd say its very similar. Vrabel and Bruschi are constants. Colvin is an upgrade over 03/04. (Becuase of his injury, in this comparison he basically takes McGinests place, and I think he is better today than McGinest was then, but whichever way you fall on that its at least close to as good) TBC and Seau are the replacement for Phifer and Ted Johnson. I see no decline there. In the secondary, IF Rodney comes back I think we are equal at safety, with better depth. Samuel, Hobbs and Scott do not matchup to Law and Poole (who was great that year) in 03, but the corner spot is better than 04, with all of the injuries.
That leaves WR. While its easy to say Branch and Givens, Givens was a work in progress in 03, and Branch was hurt for a lot of the year. Patten also was hurt in 03, and we got pretty thin at WR that year. I'd say injuries included, we are equal to 03, but down from 04.
I dont think the overall talent level is making much of a difference. We could argue where it is better or worse, but ultimatley it is better in some areas, worse in others, and any argument would end with its pretty close either way.

5) We are just as good, but have played in bad luck, or had fluky things happen.
Hard to make this argument because being just as good means overcoming those things.


MY OPINION:
We are not as good as 03/04. We don't have to be. If we were we'd be sitting in the #1 seed and would walk through the playoffs and win the SB. No team in 2006 is as good as those teams.
We need to figure out how to make plays in the clutch, every time, because soon there will be no second chances. I think we can because the primary facets of that are in place, and nothing on this team jumps out at me as a reaosn we cannot be clutch.
I think there is much less difference between 12-2 and 10-4 than we may believe. I could find a couple of plays or drives that if the Pats had stepped up in 2006, we'd be 12-2, and if they hadn't in 03/04 they would have been 10-4. the difference could be as few as 5-6 plays all year long. (Take Faulks batting up of a pass hitting him in the hands at eye level vs the Jets, and the catch by Cotchery alone, and its 11-3. Find a couple like it vs Indy and its 12-2)
Ultimately a team that is 10-4 is not as good as one that went 14-2. However, in my eyes, a team that wins a SB is every bit as good as another that did because it is the ultimate goal.
Whether this team is as good as 03/04, IMO, will very simply come down to whether or not they make the clutch plays that will decide games in the playoffs. Quite honestly doing it enough to be 12-4 vs enough to be 14-2 doesnt strike me as hindering the ability to do it through the playoffs.

I think what these numbers show are this:
-If you took the 03 and 04 teams and compared them to the 06 team by 'grading' all 2000 plays over a 16 games season, and adding up a cumulative score, all 3 would be almost identical.
-If you weighted that grade for the importance of the play in question, 03 and 04 would would come out with a higher score.
And in that you have the difference in wins and losses. (By the way, all clutch plays do not happen in the 4th quarter. They happen when you are trying to get off the field on 3rd after allowing a score then your O went 3 and out, or you are trying to convert in the red zone to go ahead rather than tie at any point in the game, etc)

The test of the Patriots in 06 with respect to 03/04 isnt IMO if they play better, worse or equal football cumulatively over all of the plays of a game, but what they do on the critical plays that will ultimately decide a game.

 

[Ring 6]

I think the best way to answer that is to snip a piece from Chris' post:

"I think the 2003 & 2004 Pats would have their hands full with this year's playoff field."

These are certainly arguable points, but I'll still use them:

1) The 2006 AFC is tougher than the 2003/4 AFC
2) The 2006 Patriots have a greater margin of victory than the 2003/4 teams and a smaller margin of loss than the 2003 team
3) The 2006 Patriots, in terms of their competition (rankings), generally fare statistically better than the 2003/4 teams

Again, comparing teams between years isn't an exact science at all. You have to work with what you have.

I'm a firm believer in wins speaking a great deal about a team. It comes down to this, (deja vu?) though:

What team is better?

A) 12-4 team that, considering the three points above, wins a Super Bowl
or
B) 14-2 team that, considering the three points above, wins a Super Bowl

I disagree. I think the 03/04 AFC was mcuh stronger than the 06.

 

[pats1]

Those really are the correct questions to be answered.

One thing, the 2003 I think was 10-0 against 10 win teams including the playoffs.

POTENTIAL ANSWERS
1) The 2006 team isnt as good as the 03/04 teams.
The answer has to be yes, because the only gauge is winning. But when the numbers suggest OVERALL they are as good (or close) the answer may be they are not as CONSISTENT. You can have a bad day and manage to win, or not, and the numbers may look similar. Also, you can play better most of the time, but worse a few more times, and 14-2 becomes 12-4 or 11-5 by playing better in 8-10 games and worse in only 2 or 3.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The 2006 team DOESNT HAVE TO BE AS GOOD AS 03/04. I think those teams we the 2 best teams in the NFL over a number of years, and there have been few SB winners in this era that were as good.

2) Playing equally as well and winning as often are not the same thing.
One thing all Patriots fans should have learned by now is that what separates teams at and above the 10 win level is primarily how they play in the clutch. Making the one, or 2 or 3 plays that determine a game doesnt necessarily show up as a big difference in stats. But teams that are good and not clutch are contenders. Teams that are good AND clutch are Champions. That is hard to measure by stats.

My opinion has always been that teams change dramatically from year to year, especially in the area of being clutch. I also believe that HC, QB, and defensive nucleus are 3 of the biggest factors in that, but everyone who steps on the field makes a difference in your ability to 'be clutch'.
I think this factor alone would have seen the 03/04 Pats beat both Indy and the Jets. Watching both of those games through the eyes of the 03/04 Pats, the game was playing right into our hands, and it was just a matter of time. This year that time never came.
I think if we look at records in comparing the 03/04 teams to the 06, those 2 games ARE the difference. The similarities outside of those 2 in regard to who we beat, who we lose to, winning big or winning close, looking bad and winning, or looking good and winning are very close.

3) The competition is better.
This is a possible answer, but I see nothing to support it.

4) The talent level has declined.
I think we can rule out QB, OL, TE, DL right off the bat. At the other positions, RB is much better than 03, and I'd say equal to 04 (Dillon has slipped but Maroney adds) at LB, I'd say its very similar. Vrabel and Bruschi are constants. Colvin is an upgrade over 03/04. (Becuase of his injury, in this comparison he basically takes McGinests place, and I think he is better today than McGinest was then, but whichever way you fall on that its at least close to as good) TBC and Seau are the replacement for Phifer and Ted Johnson. I see no decline there. In the secondary, IF Rodney comes back I think we are equal at safety, with better depth. Samuel, Hobbs and Scott do not matchup to Law and Poole (who was great that year) in 03, but the corner spot is better than 04, with all of the injuries.
That leaves WR. While its easy to say Branch and Givens, Givens was a work in progress in 03, and Branch was hurt for a lot of the year. Patten also was hurt in 03, and we got pretty thin at WR that year. I'd say injuries included, we are equal to 03, but down from 04.
I dont think the overall talent level is making much of a difference. We could argue where it is better or worse, but ultimatley it is better in some areas, worse in others, and any argument would end with its pretty close either way.

5) We are just as good, but have played in bad luck, or had fluky things happen.
Hard to make this argument because being just as good means overcoming those things.


MY OPINION:
We are not as good as 03/04. We don't have to be. If we were we'd be sitting in the #1 seed and would walk through the playoffs and win the SB. No team in 2006 is as good as those teams.
We need to figure out how to make plays in the clutch, every time, because soon there will be no second chances. I think we can because the primary facets of that are in place, and nothing on this team jumps out at me as a reaosn we cannot be clutch.
I think there is much less difference between 12-2 and 10-4 than we may believe. I could find a couple of plays or drives that if the Pats had stepped up in 2006, we'd be 12-2, and if they hadn't in 03/04 they would have been 10-4. the difference could be as few as 5-6 plays all year long. (Take Faulks batting up of a pass hitting him in the hands at eye level vs the Jets, and the catch by Cotchery alone, and its 11-3. Find a couple like it vs Indy and its 12-2)
Ultimately a team that is 10-4 is not as good as one that went 14-2. However, in my eyes, a team that wins a SB is every bit as good as another that did because it is the ultimate goal.
Whether this team is as good as 03/04, IMO, will very simply come down to whether or not they make the clutch plays that will decide games in the playoffs. Quite honestly doing it enough to be 12-4 vs enough to be 14-2 doesnt strike me as hindering the ability to do it through the playoffs.

I think what these numbers show are this:
-If you took the 03 and 04 teams and compared them to the 06 team by 'grading' all 2000 plays over a 16 games season, and adding up a cumulative score, all 3 would be almost identical.
-If you weighted that grade for the importance of the play in question, 03 and 04 would would come out with a higher score.
And in that you have the difference in wins and losses. (By the way, all clutch plays do not happen in the 4th quarter. They happen when you are trying to get off the field on 3rd after allowing a score then your O went 3 and out, or you are trying to convert in the red zone to go ahead rather than tie at any point in the game, etc)

The test of the Patriots in 06 with respect to 03/04 isnt IMO if they play better, worse or equal football cumulatively over all of the plays of a game, but what they do on the critical plays that will ultimately decide a game.

Excellent post.

"However, in my eyes, a team that wins a SB is every bit as good as another that did because it is the ultimate goal. "

Bingo.

"Quite honestly doing it enough to be 12-4 vs enough to be 14-2 doesnt strike me as hindering the ability to do it through the playoffs."

Yahtzee.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Here lies my problem with these stats. The 2003 Pats led the league in the one stat that really matters - wins. The 2004 Pats trailed only one team in the number of wins. The 2006 team trails 4 teams in the number of wins. I have just a hard time reconciling that stat with the notion that the 2006 team has dominated its competition to a relatively greater extent than did the 2003/2004 teams.

I think the 2003 team routinely made clutch plays and those plays alone turned tough losses into wins. BB even mentions in the opening sequence (2004 training camp) of the NFL Films Superbowl 39 DVD how the 2003 team made play after play when needed, especially late in games. A little bit of luck played a role in some of them as well.

There were four obvious games:

1. At Miami. The Pats block a short FG that would have put Miami ahead late in the 4th quarter. Then in OT, Mare pushes a 35yd FG attempt wide right *all the way from the left hash mark*...how often do you see a FG less than 40 yards pushed all the way across the goalpost mouth from one hash to the opposite goalpost? After an INT in Pats' territory, Brady hits Brown for an 82yd bomb.

2. At Denver. After the safety, Denver completely botched the free kick, which would eventually help the Pats with field position after Denver shortly punted. Before Denver punted, Shanahan has Kannel *throw* on 3rd down despite 100+yd Portis doing a decent job in the game, stopping the clock to boot. The Pats capitalized with a great game-winning drive.

3. At Houston. In OT, Brady gets pummelled at his 5yd line yet somehow holds onto the ball. Walter's crappy punt puts Houston in game-winning FG range at the 35. On first down, Willie McGinest nails D.Davis for a 5 yard loss, knocking Houston out of FG range and the D continues to hold, forcing a punt.

4. At Indy. The Stop. Don't forget Bethel's kick return TD as halftime expired.

One not so obvious:

5. Tennessee. After the Titans take a late lead, Bethel returns the kickoff all the way to Tennessee's 15yd line, setting up a Mike Cloud TD run to retake the lead. Ty Law ices the game on the next possession with a pick for a TD.

The big difference between the 2006 Pats and that 2003 team is the big play at the perfect time, along with the 2006 team not getting key breaks that team did.

Regards,
Chris

 

[pats1]

I disagree. I think the 03/04 AFC was mcuh stronger than the 06.

As I said those points were debatable, I'll agree with you here.

2006 - 120 wins
2004 - 140 wins
2003 - 130 wins

 

[Miguel]

2) The 2006 Patriots have a greater margin of victory than the 2003/4 teams and a smaller margin of loss than the 2003 team.

The 2006 Pats have beaten teams that currently have these number of wins.
7
8
8
6
7
6
6
12
2
4

The record of the teams that the Pats have beaten is currently 66-74 or 47.14%

The 2003 teams beat teams that won
12
6
12
4
10
5
10
10
5
12
10
5
6
6

The teams that the 2003 Patriots beat ended up with 113 wins and 111 losses or 50.45%. I do not think that it is possible for the teams for the 2006 Pats have beaten or may beat in the future to end up with the 113 wins. I am of the opinion that the 2003 Pats had a much tougher schedule and yet they ended up with more wins than the 2006 Pats.

The 2004 Patriots beat team with the following number of wins:
12
6
9
4
9
10
8
9
7
9
4
8
10
2

3) The 2006 Patriots, in terms of their competition (rankings), generally fare statistically better than the 2003/4 teams

I will opine that the 2006 Patriots have a much easier schedule to work with. Given this team's inconsistency I doubt that if it had the 2003 schedule it would do as well in the rankings.

I'm a firm believer in wins speaking a great deal about a team.

I'm a firm believer in what my eyes tell me about a team.

It comes down to this, (deja vu?) though:

What team is better?

A) 12-4 team that, considering the three points above, wins a Super Bowl
or
B) 14-2 team that, considering the three points above, wins a Super Bowl

The 14-2 team since it played a tougher schedule.

 

[Oswlek]

While I agree that the top of the AFC is probably better than it was in 2003, I vehemently disagree that the 2004 Pats "would have their hands full with this year's playoff field." I am not convinced that any of the top teams in the AFC are any better than either the Colts, Steelers or Eagles.

 

[mgteich]

In the end, we are not close to one of the best teams of all time, the 2003-2004 patriots. The record against 10 win teams in the salary cap era, followed by a SB win cannot be beaten by this team.

And BTW, what does it mean if we are statistically better than the the 2003-2004 in all categories but wins? (I would check net turnovers) It may mean that we are inconsistent and cannot score or hold on to the ball when it counts.

I agree that we don't need to be near as good as 2003/2004 to be favored to win the SB. We are not nearly as good, and we are not favored. We are not even favored to beat the jags! However, if all four of our injured stars come back, we certainly have a good shot at running the table (Maroney, Watson, Wilfork and Harrison) and Faulk.

How many posters here would rank the patriots as high as #3 in the NFL? Where were we ranked in 2003/2004?

 

[pats1]

In the end, we are not close to one of the best teams of all time, the 2003-2004 patriots. The record against 10 win teams in the salary cap era, followed by a SB win cannot be beaten by this team.

And BTW, what does it mean if we are statistically better than the the 2003-2004 in all categories but wins? (I would check net turnovers) It may mean that we are inconsistent and cannot score or hold on to the ball when it counts.

I agree that we don't need to be near as good as 2003/2004 to be favored to win the SB. We are not nearly as good, and we are not favored. We are not even favored to beat the jags! However, if all four of our injured stars come back, we certainly have a good shot at running the table (Maroney, Watson, Wilfork and Harrison) and Faulk.

How many posters here would rank the patriots as high as #3 in the NFL? Where were we ranked in 2003/2004?

All excellent points.

(Am I dreaming? Is this actually intelligent discussion going on?)

 

[Miguel]

The problem with the above stat is that the 2004 teams beat 7 teams that ended up with at least 10 wins. Beating teams of that quality that many times is much more difficult that beating the 2006 Packers or the 2006 Texans..

Correction - it was the 2003 team that beat 7 teams with at least 10 wins.

 

[Ring 6]

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.



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???.

Excellent question, and agian the heart of the matter.
I think the amount of turnovers is exaggerated as the problem.
In 2003 we had 23 turnovers, in 2004 27, and so far this year 27 which would pace us out to 31 by year end.
While it is more, we arent talking about a ridiculous increase.
I didnt break it down, but I think we would find if we did so, we would find that 905 of the time this year we have been similar in turnovers, but we have had a couple more games than usual with a large amount of turnovers. In other words we probalby have about as the same amount of 0,1,2 to games, with the exception of having maybe 2 more games where we had 4-5 turnovers.
Again it comes to the point of consistency. If the end result is that turnovers have been a big blight on this season, but the difference isnt that we habitually turn the ball over a lot more, but that the occurance of a terrible to day is more common its a different story.
If those days equal the difference between 14-2 and 12-4 then the answer is we are more susceptible to a game ruined by turnovers, but still not very susceptible. Then what matters is whether the increased penchant to flop on a day and lose due to turnovers rears its head or not in the playoffs.

I would have to say that 1 extra turnover every 4th game (compared to 04) isnt the difference between a Champion and an also ran, but when, where and against who those extra 4 popped up could make the difference between the same team being 14-2 and 12-4.

We have turned it over 27 times this year. I can off the top of my head probably remember half of those that were tipped passes, strips, fluky plays like the Watson/caldwell one or the watson deflection vs the Bears, etc.
If we had an abundant increase in poorly thrown passes being picked, or sack fumbles (meaning the OL was declining) or a returnman who fumbled 8 times, I'd say its an inherent problem. I dont see that.

I think in many ways, we compare the Pats to an imperfect memory of the past.
I would be willing to bet that if most of us were told that if we play turnover free in the last 2 games, we would have the same # of turnovers as the 04 team, we would be surprised by that. I think we have a tendancy that every time something goes wrong to compare to a tainted memory that those teams never did anything wrong.

 

[pats1]

I would be willing to bet that if most of us were told that if we play turnover free in the last 2 games, we would have the same # of turnovers as the 04 team, we would be surprised by that. I think we have a tendancy that every time something goes wrong to compare to a tainted memory that those teams never did anything wrong.

Precisely my point in the original post.

 

[JoeSixPat]

What's your measure of caliber of play?

If it's completely objective, then sure. Knock yourself out.

If it's measured by domination over an opponent - say, margin of victory...

2006 - 19 points
2004 - 14 points
2003 - 10 points

Or is it margin of loss?

2004 - 8 points
2006 - 10 points
2003 - 17 points

Well, my point was about the fallacy of stats - so if you're asking for stats to prove the fallacy of stats, I'm not sure I can - but 99% of all people understand that

I'm just using common sense and what I see. I've said this before about the offense in particular and wind up getting crucified because there's stats that say I'm wrong.

But I think most of the posters on this thread seem to come down to the eyeball test, that the 2006 team is not as good as the 2003/2004 team.