Stats from footballoutsiders.com offer a different perspective on the 2006 Pats' offense as a whole and Tom Brady's performance to date... Patriot Drive Stats (with NFL rank) 2006 yards/drive: 31.96 (6) pts/drive: 1.96 (9) TDs/drive: .241 (5) Punts/drive: .407 (9) TOs/drive: .093 (9) Ints/drive: .056 (13) Fumb/drive: .037 (11) LOS/drive: 30.35 (13) Drive Success Percentage (% of down series that result in a 1st down or TD): .725 (#2 in the NFL!) Lets compare these numbers with last year's when Branch, Givens et. al. were running the routes for Brady... 2005 yards/drive: 31.71 (6) pts/drive: 2.04 (7) TDs/drive: .244 (5) Punts/drive: .422 (15) TOs/drive: .139 (17) Ints/drive: .083 (15) Fumbles/drive: .056 (15) LOS/drive: 29.86 (24) Drive Success %: .711 (6) Analysis: So far this year, the Pats are moving the ball a bit farther per drive than last year, are scoring almost the exact same # of TDs per drive, punting less, throwing fewer INTs, fumbling less, have better field position to start out drives, and have a better drive success rate... Enough to rank #2 behind the Colts in that statistic. Considering the turnover in personnel, this is eye-opening. Now lets compare this season with Charlie's last two seasons... 2004 yards/drive: 33.96 (6) points/drive: 2.37 (5) TDs/drive: .260 (5) Punts/drive: .331 (3) TOs/drive: .154 (20) Ints/drive: .083 (13) Fumb/drive: .071 (26) LOS/drive: 31.37 (11) DSP: .733 (5) Analysis: the rankings from 2006 are comparable with 2004, except that in 2006 the Offense is doing a better chance of avoiding turnovers, whether by fumble or interception, while in 2004 the offense did a bit better at converting drives into points. But the drive success percentages are comparable for both years. A look at 2003: Yards/drive: 25.69 (20) points/drive:1.57 (16) Tds/drive: 1.68 (17) punts/drive: .455 (24) TOs/drive:.126 (10) Ints/drive:.068 (6) Fumb/drive.058 (21) LOS/drive: 33.55 (5) DSP: .649 (17) Analysis: The 2006 offense, so far, is better cumulatively in almost every area than the SB offense of 2003, with the exception of average starting Line of Scrimmage, which is likely the result of a superior defense in 2003 giving the offense short fields via turnovers. Tom Brady footballoutsiders.com uses two statistics to measure a Qbs performance: DPAR, or total value; and DVOA, total value per play. Combined into their analysis are rushing stats, sacks taken, and fumbles, unlike the infamous and widely criticized "passer rating". Here are those stats for Brady this year, with NFL rank, and since 2003: 2006 DPAR: 22.0 (7) DVOA: 17.4% (10) 2005 DPAR: 104.0 (3) DVOA: 30.9% (4) 2004 DPAR: 113.4 (3) DVOA: 41.6% (2) 2003 DPAR: 44.2 (10) DVOA: 5.6% (14) Analysis: In 2006 Brady, while not as elite a passer as in the last 2 years, is still outperforming his 2003 season by a wide margin. With all the problems, inconsistencies, frustration of this years passing game, Brady still rates cumulatively as the #7 passer in the NFL. We can expect with each week his performance will improve. The fact he can still perform at that level, after losing Branch and Givens, speaks to his quality as a player. In fact, one could argue that those circumstances make his performance thus far among his best ever. Overall conclusion The 2006 Offense can be a SB offense. Brady is as good as ever, the cumulative performance of the offense is as good as ever. As BB says, he doesn't care how the offense moves the ball, by air or ground, as long as it moves. So far in 2006, the engine has been the ground game. The one area of concern that argues against this offense being a SB offense: In '04, under Weis, the offense seemed to perform at its best against the best defenses. In '05 and '06, under McDaniels, the offense seems to perform worse against the best defenses (Denver and Miami). Also, in 2003-4, among the many records the Pats set was "games in a row when scoring first". The team usually scored on its first drive and dictated tempo the rest of the way. In 2006, the Pats struggle to score on their first drive, and fail to dictate the tempo of the game as before. But all in all, contrary to my own fears there is reason for optimism, and the offense, although inconsistent, is more effective than the naked eye suggests.