2006 statistical comparison to 2003/4

[Miguel]

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.

Too early to say that. The 2004 Patriots went 7-1 against teams with a winning record (9-7 or better). The 2003 team went 7-0 against teams with a winning record. It will take some doing for the Pats to end up with just one loss against a team that ended the 2006 regular season with a winning record.

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

True but that does not invalidate my point that the opening season loss to the Bills skews the 2003 loss average. Please also note that loss also adversely affected the 2003 Pats in most of the rankings.

 

[pats1]

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.

And at this point, that's unquestionable.

But once we (hopefully) have some thrilling playoff memories to cherish, along with a 4th Lombardi, and the stats I showed are brought back up in 2008 or whatever, the story could be different.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Interesting stuff.
Given that both the 01 and 03 teams had an element of chance (goofs by opponents) that were taken advantage of by those Pats teams, the question remains will the 06 Pats encounter similar 'opportunities' and if so how well are they suited to take advantage and make the kill shot?

 

[pats1]

True but that does not invalidate my point that the opening season loss to the Bills skews the 2003 loss average. Please also note that loss also adversely affected the 2003 Pats in most of the rankings.

Do they not cancel themselves out?

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

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.

I think the 2006 Chargers are better than the 2004 Steelers. I think the defenses are about the same (I'd give Pittsburgh an edge thanks to their safeties) and I don't think Rivers will be the weak link that Rothlisberger was (a huge minus). Yes, the 2006 Colts without Bob Sanders is inferior to the 2004 squad, but when he's in there, the D plays so much better and makes the 2006 team better overall than the 2004 squad. The 2006 Ravens are a poor-mans Chargers team. The D is outstanding and the O, while not spectacular, won't hand a game away. The 2004 opponents had obvious flaws that could be exposed and nobody does that better than BB. These 2006 teams aren't as flawed.

Regards,
Chris

 

[Ring 6]

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.

I think the stats ARE proof that it is as good defensively. Any difference is really splitting hairs.

Offensively? I think you need to look back at the 2003 offense. You seem to have revisionary history of how good it was. Our running game was pathetic most of that year. We had MANY game where we struggled to put points on the board. I find it very hard to call the 2003 offense better than the 2006.
We were better on offense in 2004, but mainly because we ran and controlled the clock then took advantage with the deep ball.
I dont think the 2006 offense IN SYNC would struggle to keep up with the 2004 offense.
HOWEVER, it eminates from the running game. Early in the year we ran the ball as well as 2004. Then injuries followed. Graham, Neal, OCallahan, Maroney. All key pieces to the running game.
I dont know if we have had the entire starting OL play together in 2 months. And Graham, who may be as important as any OL, missed a lot of time.
Fix the running game, which may only require health, and the offense becomes much, much better.

We have focussed so much on defensive injuries, that we have missed out on the fact that running game injuries have been devastating

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Interesting stuff.
Given that both the 01 and 03 teams had an element of chance (goofs by opponents) that were taken advantage of by those Pats teams, the question remains will the 06 Pats encounter similar 'opportunities' and if so how well are they suited to take advantage and make the kill shot?

I think the Pats did already and failed one test...the Vinatieri miss that would have given the Colts a 10pt lead late in that 27-20 loss. The 2003 team would have seized the opportunity, marched down the field to tie the game and win it in OT. The 2006 team watches a pass bounce off of Faulk's hands into Cato June's to end the game.

Regards,
Chris

 

[Ring 6]

I think the Pats did already and failed one test...the Vinatieri miss that would have given the Colts a 10pt lead late in that 27-20 loss. The 2003 team would have seized the opportunity, marched down the field to tie the game and win it in OT. The 2006 team watches a pass bounce off of Faulk's hands into Cato June's to end the game.

Regards,
Chris

that was the plague of 05 also, particularly the Bronco game.
Faulk fumbling on a waste play was bad enough, then Hobbs fumbles the ensuing kick. STILL, we were in it, and a Pat TD turned to a Bronco TD on the Bailey Int.
Lets hope we a) dont put oursleves in holes to begin with or b) overcome them when we have the opportunity.

 

[hwc]

Interesting stuff.
Given that both the 01 and 03 teams had an element of chance (goofs by opponents) that were taken advantage of by those Pats teams, the question remains will the 06 Pats encounter similar 'opportunities' and if so how well are they suited to take advantage and make the kill shot?

The problem is that it is the 2006 Pats that are making those goofs and handing good teams opportunities to beat them. Watson makes a first down catch and puts the ball on the ground. Brady throws a pick. Gaffney drops a 50 yard bomb floating down right into his hands. Defense allows the other team to convert a 3rd and 22. Matt Light false starts to nullify a Pats first down. Special teams can't line up in a legal formation nullying a punt that pins the other team on their goal line.

Those, my friends, are precisely the mistakes that determine whether you are a good team or a bad team. By that standard, the Pats are not a good team....and, more troubling, show no signs of becoming a good team.

I don't care if they razzle/dazzle with offensive firepower. That's not what I'm talking about. Dink, dunk, and a 10-7 win is fine with me. But, I am just not seeing championship caliber execution from this team. 14 games into the season, I think we have to start dealing with the distinct possibility that they simply are incapable of quality play.

 

[Miguel]

Do they not cancel themselves out?

How??

The 2003 Pats would look much better in most of the 2003 offensive rankings and some of the 2003 defensive rankings if they had just played an average game against the Bills in the Week 1 game.

 

[hwc]

I dont think the 2006 offense IN SYNC would struggle to keep up with the 2004 offense.
HOWEVER, it eminates from the running game. Early in the year we ran the ball as well as 2004. Then injuries followed. Graham, Neal, OCallahan, Maroney. All key pieces to the running game.
I dont know if we have had the entire starting OL play together in 2 months. And Graham, who may be as important as any OL, missed a lot of time.
Fix the running game, which may only require health, and the offense becomes much, much better.

The problems are deeper than that. Good defenses can always shut down the run. That's the dilemma the Pats face when they play a GOOD defense. Just stop the run and the Pats are dead because they have no passing game. To counteract that, a team has to be able to make the defense pay by striking downfield. The Pats do not have that in their arsenal. Once the running game is shut down, Brady is just sitting there taking hits like a punching bag because nobody is open. Or when they are open, they drop the ball. Or, when they are open and catch the ball, they fumble the damn thing.

IMO, the Pats best chance for winning right now is Marty-ball. Dink, dunk, screens, runs and hope the defense gets a few turnovers.

 

[BelichickFan]

The 2003 Pats would look much better in most of the 2003 offensive rankings and some of the 2003 defensive rankings if they had just played an average game against the Bills in the Week 1 game.

But they didn't. Can we throw out this last week's Miami game too ?

 

[JoeSixPat]

I think the stats ARE proof that it is as good defensively. Any difference is really splitting hairs.

Offensively? I think you need to look back at the 2003 offense. You seem to have revisionary history of how good it was. Our running game was pathetic most of that year. We had MANY game where we struggled to put points on the board. I find it very hard to call the 2003 offense better than the 2006.
We were better on offense in 2004, but mainly because we ran and controlled the clock then took advantage with the deep ball.
I dont think the 2006 offense IN SYNC would struggle to keep up with the 2004 offense.
HOWEVER, it eminates from the running game. Early in the year we ran the ball as well as 2004. Then injuries followed. Graham, Neal, OCallahan, Maroney. All key pieces to the running game.
I dont know if we have had the entire starting OL play together in 2 months. And Graham, who may be as important as any OL, missed a lot of time.
Fix the running game, which may only require health, and the offense becomes much, much better.

We have focussed so much on defensive injuries, that we have missed out on the fact that running game injuries have been devastating

And yet somehow the team refused to give up in so many games, and their attitude often willed them to win, making the impossible pass when it absolutely had to be made with the game hanging in the balance.

I'm exaggerating a little here - but that's something that we all know to be true - and one that no stat can quantify.

Can this team get that back? That remains to be seen.

 

[Miguel]

Again, just one of those things.

From an eyeball those 2003/2004 teams have whatever it is that separates championship teams from very, very good teams. And that was evident throughout the regular season. This team has yet to show me that it has "it" whatever it is that causes teams to have "just one of those things".

 

[JoeSixPat]

From an eyeball those 2003/2004 teams have whatever it is that separates championship teams from very, very good teams. And that was evident throughout the regular season. This team has yet to show me that it has "it" whatever it is that causes teams to have "just one of those things".

Yes, but where are your stats to prove it

OK - two Lombardi's - but what else?

 

[Miguel]

But they didn't. Can we throw out this last week's Miami game too ?

My opinion remains that the 2003 team is hurt in statisical comparisons by a game that was played days after a captain was released. I do not think that the Pats had such an excuse for the Miami game.

 

[BelichickFan]

From an eyeball those 2003/2004 teams have whatever it is that separates championship teams from very, very good teams. And that was evident throughout the regular season. This team has yet to show me that it has "it" whatever it is that causes teams to have "just one of those things".

I actually agree with you. I don't think anyone can reasonably expect the offense to be as good as it was with Givens and Branch. The reason I tend to side on the "stats guys" side, though, is that our TE are better, our RB should be better once Maroney returns. And McDaniels is doing a fine job as OC. The loss of two starting WR, though, with replacements who are only adequate and still getting completely familiar enough with Brady, is enough to bring the offense down a notch when the really need it.

But I don't like the arguments on the other side :

- McDaniels is an idiot.
- The WR suck.
- We won more games in 2003/4 so those teams must have been better.
- Take out games or plays to make the stats say what people want.

I don't buy any of the above.

 

[Miguel]

Yes, but where are your stats to prove it

OK - two Lombardi's - but what else?

How about those teams' records against teams with winning records - 7-0 in 2003 and 7-1 in 2004??

 

[BelichickFan]

FWIW, btw, Football Outsiders' stats show us getting better.

For the year, SD is #1 33.9% better than league average, we're #5 at 22.3% above average. When the do just the last 8 weeks, though, those numbers go to 31.9% and 27.4%. And for the year our offense is ranked 8th, defense 5th and special teams 3rd. Three top ten units is a SB contender in my mind.

 

[pats1]

Brady throws a pick.

Good Lord. Brady never did that in 2003 or 2004!