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