2006 statistical comparison to 2003/4

[BelichickFan]

And yet you brought up turnovers as the reason that the 2006 Pats lost to the Jets and Colts.

I was asked why we lost. We turned the ball over. And if we continue to, or go back to it after our turnover free Texans game, we will lose.

Bottom line for this season - if we're even in turnovers, or even -1, I think we have a good chance against anyone. -2 or worse, it's tough to beat good teams.

 

[Miguel]

Cincinnati? Minnesota? Houston? Buffalo? Green Bay? Chicago?

Ask the same question about the 2004 team - which of these games were played at "championship level?"

-Colts, W, -- No (The 2006 Pats/Colts was just as close)
-Cardinals, W, -- Yes
-Bills, W, -- Yes
-Dolphins, W -- Yes
-Seahawks, W -- No (Very close game)
-Jets, W -- No
-Steelers, L -- No
-Rams, W -- Yes
-Bills, W -- Yes
-Chiefs, W -- No
-Ravens, W -- Yes
-Browns, W -- Yes
-Bengals, W -- No
-Dolphins, L -- No

It appears to me that the 2006 team is getting the benefit of doubt while the 2004 team is not?? The 2006 team gets credit for playing at a championship level for beating Houston while the 2004 Pats do not for beating a division champ (Seattle). How do you consider the Bears game playing at a championship-level when the Pats turned the ball over 5 times???

 

[pats1]

It appears to me that the 2006 team is getting the benefit of doubt while the 2004 team is not?? The 2006 team gets credit for playing at a championship level for beating Houston while the 2004 Pats do not for beating a division champ (Seattle). How do you consider the Bears game playing at a championship-level when the Pats turned the ball over 5 times???

Beating a 4-12/5-11 team by 33 points (with 4 INTs, 4 sacks, and 1 FF) is a "championship-level" win.

Beating a 14-2 team with the best defense in the league is a "championship-level" win.

Beating a 9-7 team is a "good win," but I don't know if it fits the ambiguous definition of a "championship-level" win.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

I disagree. I think its foolish to day any good defense can shut down the run. Teams win with the running game in the playoffs all the time. The pass is set up by the run. If any good D could stop the run any time they wanted to playoff games would be 3-0.
That the Pats have NO PASSING GAME is quite a stretch.

 

[BelichickFan]

I disagree. I think its foolish to day any good defense can shut down the run. Teams win with the running game in the playoffs all the time. The pass is set up by the run.

Anyone who doubts these words should watch San Diego. Their receiving threat is Gates and no-one else. Other than that, it's Tomlinson and basically nothing else.

 

[DaBruinz]

How does that answer my question:
"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??

That's an easy answer.

Because other teams are better than they were in 2003 and 2004.

That wasn't so hard.

 

[Deus Irae]

The inherent problems with the arguments of both sides are clear to see. People defending the 2006 team cannot overcome the records of the earlier teams against quality opponents, cannot overcome the poorer record of the current team against quality opponents, and cannot overcome "hindsight" or the "eye test". On the other hand, people denigrating the current team cannot overcome the statistical reality that the current team is statistically more than comparable to the earlier squads.

The simplest explanation is that this year's team is more of a roller coaster squad who's mistakes and bad luck come back to haunt them more than they did in earlier seasons. This team struggled against Denver when Denver was playing well and the Patriots lost Rodney to injury. In previous years, the Rodney injury might have happened against a Houston team that couldn't take advantage of it, for example, but Denver saw him out and took advantage of the play to beat James Sanders' coverage.

Against Indianapolis, Bad play calling and poor execution, along with one of about four truly bad games by Brady this season, undid the job the defense was doing. That game is a win if Brady doesn't gas-pipe it, and the game is a win if the team doesn't go away from pounding the ball down the throat of the Colts.

I don't think this year's team is nearly as good as the 2004 edition, and I think that the team is the weakest since the first Super Bowl winners. I think that's because Brady is a very pedestrian quarterback this season, and there is too much of an age issue on the team at the major positions:

1.) Hobbs is talented, but young. Next year, he'll quite possibly be one of the best corners in the league. This season, between the hand and the lack of experience, not so much.

2.) Rodney and Bruschi are both about to turn, what, 65? They're still capable of playing, but neither is as qood as they were 2 years ago, and it impacts the middle of the field. Sanders looks as if he'll be a suitable replacement by next season, but he'll always be undersized compared to Rodney and will never be as intimidating. As for Bruschi, I think I'm his backup right now, given the team's depth chart.

3.) The offensive line is inexperienced at spots and far better against the pass than it is in plowing the way for the run. This problem opening holes needs to be corrected.

4.) The receivers. Any questions?

5.) Brady. There's more to his not making the Pro Bowl than jealousy. The Indianapolis game, the Miami game(s), the Denver game.... he's clearly having a down year for him, and it's costing the team wins.


To me, the bottom line is that this team is probably only better than that first Super Bowl team, and then only better when both running backs are healthy. But, that may well be good enough, in a league where most other teams have at least one glaring weakness that can be exploited by Belichick and company.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

In your projected stats for Brady, did you take into consideration that after the bye week, Brady has been averaging almost 65% complete on his passes compared to 54% before the bye week?

The idea that the offense was playing better earlier in the season is a myth. Well, maybe not a myth. But the Passing game wasn't nearly as good early in the season. The running game has tapered off, but that is because Maroney and O'Callaghan have been out.

In my opinion, this team is very similar to the 2001 team in that its the DEFENSE that is winning the games. The offense has improved, but it also has had its stinker games. Miami is case in point. However, I DO believe that this team has what it takes to win it all because it has the defense that it does.

 

[Miguel]

That's an easy answer.

Because other teams are better than they were in 2003 and 2004.

That wasn't so hard.

If you say so

I think differently.

 

[DaBruinz]

I guess that it comes down to this.

My eyeballs told me during the regular season that the 2003/2004 teams were a championship team. I saw those teams regularly play at a high level during the regular season. If the 2003/2004 teams played as many games against weak opposition or if the 2006 team had to play as many good teams, the statistical comparison would greatly favor the SB champion teams. The 2003 team BEAT 3 12-4 teams. The 2006 Pats will not PLAY, let alone beat, 3 teams with at least 12 wins.The 2003 team BEAT 7 teams with at least 10 wins.The 2006 team will not play, let alone beat, 7 teams with at least 10 wins. Given a tougher schedule, it is no wonder that the 2003 team does not do well as the 2006 teams in most stats.

If the 2006 Pats aren't given a chance to play the same number of 12-4 teams as the 2003 team, how can you predict what would happen in those games? Can you say that teams aren't as good if there aren't as many teams with more than 12 wins? Or has the competition in the league gotten so good that winning 12 games is really a spectacular feat?

If the 2006 Pats aren't given a chance to play 7 teams that have 10 wins or better, how can you say how they would fare against 10 win teams?

Also, what is to say that the Pats 2003 schedule was acutally tougher than this one? Many many people question the "Strength of Schedule" when you look back in hind-sight because only the play-off teams had their 12 wins.

What was Miami's record in 2003 the 1st time the Pats played them? What was the Redskins schedule when we played them in 2003? Or how about the Broncos record? When the Pats lost to the Skins, were they really a 5-11 team? Or were they really a 2-1 team on their way to a 5-11 season?

Of the teams that the Pats played this year, the Jets, Bengals, Colts, Broncos, Jaguars and the Bears have the potential to finish with 10 wins or better. The Pats could end up 3-3 or 3-2 against teams with 10 or more wins in the regular season. The 2003 Pats also included the Post-Season, and, theoretically, the Pats could end up at 6-2 against teams with 10 or more wins if they win out.

Out of the 14 games the Pats played this year, how many of them were played at a championship-level??

The Squeelers didn't play at a Championship level, yet they still won the SuperBowl last year. Can you define "CHAMPIONSHIP" level?

Out of the games against good teams, how many of them did the Pats played well in??

Well, what do you consider good teams? I think the Pats have played well against some good teams and bad against some bad teams this year. Miami is a perfect case in point. Miami is not a good team, yet the Pats played very badly.

I can't explain what "it" is. But those teams had "it" and they showed "it" against the good teams in the regular season. I ask how many times this season has the 2006 Patriots demonstrated on the field, not in the stats, that they had "it".IMO, not many.

I think that "IT" is the desire, the will, and the experience to do what needs to be done to win it all. Some of these younger players haven't known all the aspects of it because they haven't been in the system long enough. There are some players on this team that may never have won a championship game or played on a championship team. You can't just change people overnight. It takes time.

I also think that injuries have taken a bigger toll on players. When you get a lot of fluke injuries like what happened to Harrison, Wilson, and Seau, that takes a toll on the mental toughness of a team.

 

[DaBruinz]

Anyone who doubts these words should watch San Diego. Their receiving threat is Gates and no-one else. Other than that, it's Tomlinson and basically nothing else.

WOW. BBFan, I have to say that your characterization of San Diego is somewhat off.

1) McCardell, Parker, and Jackson are a very good receiving trio. McCardell and Parker regularly haul in over 70% of the passes thrown to them. They are both slightly below 70%, but that can be attributed to having a new QB throwing them the ball.

2) That being said, San Diego's offense IS designed around Tomlinson. They regularly go with the 2WR/2RB/1TE or 1WR/2TE/2RB set with Lorenzo Neal as the lead blocker.

 

[DaBruinz]

If you say so

I think differently.

We all know that YOU think DIFFERENTLY .

But, answer me this. If the Pats win out. They will end up 6-2 against teams with 10 wins or better. Does that make them worse than the 2003 team?

 

[JoeSixPat]

I agree that the 2006 offense isn't as good as the 2004 offense (*gasp* - my stats prove it!).

But you can't tell me you seriously believe Antowain Smith and the 2003 offense was better than the current 2006 offense. (*gasp* - my stats prove it!)

Yes - I can tell you that the 2006 offense has not been as good as the 2003 offense... for many of the same reasons Miguel and I have cited in distinguishing a championship offense from the way that this one has been playing to date. It's simply what our guts and our eyeballs tell us.

We're inconsistent, have no deep game that's impacting many other aspects of our game and don't seem to have that "find a way to win" mentality of the 2003/2004 teams. That includes the 2003 offensive unit with Smith.

None of these offenses are/were perfect - but Smith and our running game averaged 3.4 yards per carry in 2003 whereas Dillaroney are averaging 3.8 yards per carry in 2006. That's not an outrageous difference.

The important thing is that 3.4 yards per game were good enough to keep a credible ground game threat to take enough pressure off of Brady to make the passes he needed to make when he needed to make them. The 3.8 yards per carry normally would be enough to keep pressure off of Brady but given the lack of a long game, its impacted Brady and our TEs and, I feel has limited our running game as well as members of the secondary are free to come up to the line of scrimmage.

I just find it interesting that no effort was made to compare the 2002 offense to other teams. In some ways they are "statistically" as good and better than even the Super Bowl teams!

They were #2 in TDs scored and the running game with *gasp* Antowain Smith was as good as the running game we have this year with Dillon and Maroney, with both teams averaging 3.8 yards per carry.

Yet clearly the 2002 squad was lacking something that held them back from a Super Bowl.

Having the fans or worse yet, players, bury their heads in the sand with the statistical confidence they are as good as Super Bowl teams does nothing to help us. Better they recognize what they are lacking - both the tangible and intangible aspects of football - and do their best to address it, before its too late.

 

[PatsFan37]

I am as big a Pats fan as anyone here. I drink the Kool-Aid. But, fourteen games into the seaon, the offense is what it is -- not very good.

If the Pats can get a lead against a defense that has trouble stopping the run, the Pats can win games. Against a physical, run-stopping defense on a playoff caliber team, it is going to be a challenge. The passing game is just not there, right now. I didn't see anything in Houston game to suggest otherwise, although not turning the ball over helped.

I'm mostly with you on this. The offense has struggled all season and the Lions game was evidence of that struggle as well.

I also agree with Pats1 that we get too rosy about past teams. The Pats offense, even in the SB years, would disappear for quarters or halves at a time. The offense has always been frustrating. But I agree, this year it is truly struggling.

We have to remember two things. First, the defense this year is pretty remarkable. There isn't a team in the league that can run on them when Wilfork is in and they're good at getting pressure and recently, good at creating turnovers. I watched the Bengals lose to the Colts because they couldn't rush four and generate pressure. The Patriots can.

Second. Despite many turnovers, the offense moved the ball well against the Bears. That was no fluke. With all the comparison against teams past, let's remember that. At the time they played the Pats (which is what matters), the Bears were among the best and the Pats had a successful passing attack despite struggling to run.

With Maroney, Faulk, Dillon, Watson, Graham, Caldwell, and Brown they have a serviceable passing attack. Not great, but serviceable. Add a decent running game, good special teams, and a crushing defense and this is a team that can win.

It doesn't hurt that they're physical and as well-conditioned as any team in the league. And with a few exceptions here and there, they're well-coached.

I feel like I'm forgetting something ... oh, that's right. They have Brady. I know, sometimes that's the only reason they're winning with these receivers.

No rosy glasses here, it's also a team that can lose and lose badly. But I haven't stopped hoping for a superbowl. No way.

Now let's hope Faulk and Vrabel are okay, because they're both critical to the Pats chances.

 

[pats1]

Yes - I can tell you that the 2006 offense has not been as good as the 2003 offense... for many of the same reasons Miguel and I have cited in distinguishing a championship offense from the way that this one has been playing to date. It's simply what our guts and our eyeballs tell us.

We're inconsistent, have no deep game that's impacting many other aspects of our game and don't seem to have that "find a way to win" mentality of the 2003/2004 teams. That includes the 2003 offensive unit with Smith.

None of these offenses are/were perfect - but Smith and our running game averaged 3.4 yards per carry in 2003 whereas Dillaroney are averaging 3.8 yards per carry in 2006. That's not an outrageous difference.

The important thing is that 3.4 yards per game were good enough to keep a credible ground game threat to take enough pressure off of Brady to make the passes he needed to make when he needed to make them. The 3.8 yards per carry normally would be enough to keep pressure off of Brady but given the lack of a long game, its impacted Brady and our TEs and, I feel has limited our running game as well as members of the secondary are free to come up to the line of scrimmage.

I just find it interesting that no effort was made to compare the 2002 offense to other teams. In some ways they are "statistically" as good and better than even the Super Bowl teams!

They were #2 in TDs scored and the running game with *gasp* Antowain Smith was as good as the running game we have this year with Dillon and Maroney, with both teams averaging 3.8 yards per carry.

Yet clearly the 2002 squad was lacking something that held them back from a Super Bowl.

Having the fans or worse yet, players, bury their heads in the sand with the statistical confidence they are as good as Super Bowl teams does nothing to help us. Better they recognize what they are lacking - both the tangible and intangible aspects of football - and do their best to address it, before its too late.

Lack of a long game in 2006?

The 2003 Patriots had 8 passes for 40+ yards (incl. YAC) in 2003 - a .5 rate. They also had 44 passes for 20+ yards in 2003 - a 2.75 rate.

The 2006 Patriots have 5 passes for 40+ yards (incl. YAC) in 2006 - a .36 rate. They also have 41 passes for 20+ yards in 2006 - a 2.93 rate.

There's really no difference between the "deep" game of 2003 and the "deep" game of 2003.

 

[pats1]

Yet clearly the 2002 squad was lacking something that held them back from a Super Bowl.

Hint, hint:

A defense.

(31st in rushing yards/game)

 

[pats1]

I'm mostly with you on this. The offense has struggled all season and the Lions game was evidence of that struggle as well.

Just out of curiosity, 28 points scored is the sign of a struggling offense?

 

[JoeSixPat]

Lack of a long game in 2006?

The 2003 Patriots had 8 passes for 40+ yards (incl. YAC) in 2003 - a .5 rate. They also had 44 passes for 20+ yards in 2003 - a 2.75 rate.

The 2006 Patriots have 5 passes for 40+ yards (incl. YAC) in 2006 - a .36 rate. They also have 41 passes for 20+ yards in 2006 - a 2.93 rate.

There's really no difference between the "deep" game of 2003 and the "deep" game of 2003.

Another stellar example of how over-reliance on statistics can fail you.

The lack of a deep game in 2006 is one of our greatest weaknesses. I'm not making this up even if you have stastistics that say otherwise.

And yes, as I said in one of my earlier posts the 2002 defense got old overnight - and the fact that our defense is so good in 2006 further underscores the liability that has become the offense and their inconsistency in so many games.

Bottom line that transcends statistics: The 2006 offense has been inconsistent at best, is very weak in the long game, and has made major game changing mistakes.

In essence, as Tom Brady himself said, they can't play the way they have been and expect to be Super Bowl contenders.

Try using your stats to convince Brady that he's wrong and then come back and tell us what you think.

 

[Miguel]

We all know that YOU think DIFFERENTLY .

But, answer me this. If the Pats win out. They will end up 6-2 against teams with 10 wins or better.

Tell me how the Pats will end up 6-2 against teams with 10 wins or better.

 

[Pats726]

Miguell u are right..it CAN NOT happen....I was thinking maybe against teams with winning records..BUT their losses would be 4...6-4...w/o looking at it..u are VERY correct...