Pre 2007 vs. Post 2007 Offense

[maverick4]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Refresh my memory, which of those other two teams went 16-0?

Yes, 19-0 would have been better, or the right 18-1 would have been better. But saying 20 years from now people will remember the 2002 Pats SB win more than the 2007 Pats 16-0 -- first in NFL history -- is just asinine.

That's ridiculous. People are going to remember the Pats-Rams Superbowl much more than the forgotten 07 season. They'll bring up the Video Witch Hunt more than they bring up 16-0, across the nation.

You never heard of the Coryell offense, why? Does anyone talk about the 98 Vikings team? Who 10 years from now is going to care about Peyton's 49 TD season? Or, for that matter, does anyone remember the season BEFORE the Dolphins perfect season?


No one outside of New England is going to care about the 07 season.

 

[DaedalusX]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Who cares what people remember? Maybe they'll remember that we had a chance to close a perfect season in 2007 and blew it. Jee, that's a nice memory.

Regardless of what others remember, we can always know that we won it all in 2001, 2003 and 2004. We can't make that statement about 2007.

What are you babbling about? My response was to his comment that people are more likely to remember the 2002 SB win than the 16-0 season. That's plainly, obviously, painfully wrong and idiotic to suggest.

I made no comment as to whether it was worth remembering or not. Seriously, get the sand out of your vagoo.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Excuse making for 07, sounds like the same lame excuses given by 01 Rams fans, or 03-04 Colts fans. They don't get it about why their superstar offense lost; they think they were the better team even now, and keep making excuses about 'if this happened we would have won'.

The 2003 Patriots defense would have completely shut down the 2007 Patriots offense. Both 2003 or 2004 Patriots teams would beat the 2007 Patriots team most of the time, even if you had 100 simulations. All the excuse making and head scratching, is the same confusion Colts fans experienced for why they didn't win championships in 2003 or 2004, or Rams in 2001 with a great defense that year too which most people don't mention.

Thats a pretty obtuse analysis.
The 03 and 04 Colts couldnt even make it to the SB.
The 07 Patriots win the game if one of many likely things happen on that drive. Such as:
-If the DBs held onto any of the Ints Eli threw them.
-If the pass rush that had Eli in the grasp did not let him escape
-If tyree doesnt catch the ball with his helmet
That is just far too thin a line to say it is proof that the entire philosophy of that team was proven ignorant.

To give a more blatant example, 1 yard is the difference between the 00 Rams style and the 00 Titans style being proven to be right.


You simply can't convince me that the strategy and approach and game planning of a team that goes 18-0 and leads the WB with under 2 minutes left is determined to be right or wrong by whether the defense defends that last drive or not.

 

[maverick4]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

What are you babbling about? My response was to his comment that people are more likely to remember the 2002 SB win than the 16-0 season. That's plainly, obviously, painfully wrong and idiotic to suggest.

I made no comment as to whether it was worth remembering or not. Seriously, get the sand out of your vagoo.

Once again, wrong.

20 years from now, when people talk about history, it will be how the Patriots had a major upset of the Rams in 2001, maybe the best Superbowl match/upset ever, and if they ever talk about 2007 it will be about the Giants and the Video Witch Hunt. No one is going to honor any of the records or things you value about that 2007 season.

Your claim about 2007 records and 16-0, are as silly as Rams fans clinging to the false belief that people are going to remember the 2001 Rams for their dominance.

 

[maverick4]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

To give a more blatant example, 1 yard is the difference between the 00 Rams style and the 00 Titans style being proven to be right.


You simply can't convince me that the strategy and approach and game planning of a team that goes 18-0 and leads the WB with under 2 minutes left is determined to be right or wrong by whether the defense defends that last drive or not.

It is hilarious you bring up the explosive Rams, when they barely beat a clearly inferior 00 Titans team, and were beaten by a far inferior 01 Patriots team.

Not sure how this helps support your orgasm when it comes to offensive stats/schemes...

 

[DaedalusX]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Thats a pretty obtuse analysis.
The 03 and 04 Colts couldnt even make it to the SB.
The 07 Patriots win the game if one of many likely things happen on that drive. Such as:
-If the DBs held onto any of the Ints Eli threw them.
-If the pass rush that had Eli in the grasp did not let him escape
-If tyree doesnt catch the ball with his helmet
That is just far too thin a line to say it is proof that the entire philosophy of that team was proven ignorant.

To give a more blatant example, 1 yard is the difference between the 00 Rams style and the 00 Titans style being proven to be right.


You simply can't convince me that the strategy and approach and game planning of a team that goes 18-0 and leads the WB with under 2 minutes left is determined to be right or wrong by whether the defense defends that last drive or not.

You're arguing nuance to someone who wants to reduce this down to a simple "yes/no" "black/white" evaluation of a game far more complicated than any of us are even capable of breaking down on a professional level. He wants to hear "YEA, D# GETS CHAMPIONSHIPS DONE", not a reasoned retort.

 

[DaedalusX]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Once again, wrong.

20 years from now, when people talk about history, it will be how the Patriots had a major upset of the Rams in 2001, maybe the best Superbowl ever,

Wow, you are delusional.

Do you know how many people would say that 2007 was the greatest SB ever? Or 2000? Or any of the Montana ones? Or, really, almost any SB with teams in them that had fans?

You're approaching this like a 12 year old.

 

[maverick4]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

He wants to hear "YEA, D# GETS CHAMPIONSHIPS DONE", not a reasoned retort.

And yet you have no response when it comes to historical failed success for finesse pass-happy offenses winning championships. Physical, attacking defenses DO have great success with championships. The record is for all to see.

 

[DaedalusX]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

And yet you have no response when it comes to historical failed success for finesse pass-happy offenses winning championships. Physical, attacking defenses DO have great success with championships. The record is for all to see.

I don't need a response for that. Your argument is something a 3rd grader would draw up.

"Patriots pass a lot, teams that pass a lot aren't traditionally successful, Patriots lost Super Bowl by a hair, OMG PASSING IS A SIGN OF A FAILED TEAM. D# D# D#!!!!!!!"

Teams win how they win. And, for the record, the Colts -- as much as you'll hate to admit it -- prove that explosive offense CAN lead to a championship.

 

[maverick4]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Do you know how many people would say that 2007 was the greatest SB ever? Or 2000? Or any of the Montana ones? Or, really, almost any SB with teams in them that had fans?

2007 was a memorable Superbowl. However, it won't be remembered the way that hopeful Patriots fan hopes it will be remembered.

Who is being delusional?

Nobody remembers or celebrates the 2001 Rams for their dominance or brilliance. 20 years from now, nobody will remember the 2001 Rams, or 2007 Patriots, except for their loss. If that makes you feel good, then great.

 

[maverick4]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Teams win how they win. And, for the record, the Colts -- as much as you'll hate to admit it -- prove that explosive offense CAN lead to a championship.

Hmmmm....

Look at the past 30 years. The formula I described still holds.

By the way, the Colts in 2006 won because their defense gel'd in the playoffs, Peyton played ball control offense on his way to a historical upset of the Pats coming from behind, then was handed the trophy by a Rex Grossman led Bears team.

Not sure how that proves ANY of your claims...

 

[PittPatriot]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Finesse offenses don't win the big games and that is exactly what happened in 2007

If you want to win a title you just can't go pass crazy all season and expect it to last or result into a championship

2 keys to a championship team are a great mixed balance of pass with smash mouth type running and a defense on the other side which does not have to be dominating but just does not break

The 2003 and 2004 Patriots were the latter and thats why 2 Lombardis are in the showcase.

So far from what I have seen this season is this is a finesse passing offense which BTW is not working very well and on top of that is a very unbalanced offense where the rushing attack is near non-existent,This is the type of offense that won't win games consistently if it stays like this and the defense is not making big plays like INTs and Sacks and that is another problem.

Not to mention that the 2 quarterbacks we have faced have had ample time to throw,If this continues imagine how many TDs Brees and Manning will lay on this D - Right now the pass rush is not only bad,its laughable and to tell you the truth even if this team improves to be a legitamate contender,the pass rush will still blow huge chunks all season....thats not only likely,its a near given probability.

While I agree with your overall opinion, the 2007 Patriots were beyond finesse offense. The WR screen going for 3-5yards at the very worst was a running play for them. They won games in the warm sun of September/October and the blistering wind and cold of Nov-Jan. Even when the elements 'slowed' them (B'more), they found a way to make it out. Specifically that B'more game, the Defense (like it often had) could not stop the opposing team. The offense just had to have the ball last.
That team could have and should have beaten the NYG. They beat them in cold NJ, why not do it in AZ at the Superbowl? The Giants beat them with a 4man rush. It wasn't like they played an ingenius X's and O's game.

Having said all of this, I prefer the 2007-present high scoring offense because lowers my BP when we are on D. I know our guys will get it back and get 7. Cassel did it last year, and I believe we will be able to it again.

 

[DaedalusX]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

2007 was a memorable Superbowl. However, it won't be remembered the way that hopeful Patriots fan hopes it will be remembered.

Your moving goal posts. You can't qualify this as "Patriots fans" now after you clearly stated "no one".

Who is being delusional?

You, quite plainly.

Nobody remembers or celebrates the 2001 Rams for their dominance or brilliance. 20 years from now, nobody will remember the 2001 Rams, or 2007 Patriots, except for their loss. If that makes you feel good, then great.

It doesn't really make me "feel" anything. Obviously you're a bit too tightly wound on this issue though.

 

[DaedalusX]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Hmmmm....

Look at the past 30 years. The formula I described still holds.

Football has changed quite a bit in the past 30 years. You're committing a logical fallacy by implying the past measure of success and strategy in any way applies as an absolute in today's league. That doesn't disprove the argument either, but it makes your "evidence" quite plainly rubbish.

By the way, the Colts in 2006 won because their defense gel'd in the playoffs, Peyton played ball control offense on his way to a historical upset of the Pats coming from behind, then was handed the trophy by a Rex Grossman led Bears team.

This is one of the most pathetic breakdowns of a football season or championship I have ever seen.

 

[maverick4]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Football has changed quite a bit in the past 30 years. You're committing a logical fallacy by implying the past measure of success and strategy in any way applies as an absolute in today's league.

Why are you hiding the fact that you're TOO LAZY to actually analyze historical Superbowl winners?

Forget going back 30 years, you're too lazy for that, why don't you spend 1 minute looking at the past 10 Superbowl winners.

Aside from the fluke 2006 Colts season when multiple positive events happened for them to win a ring, you have ZERO proof or substance behind any of your crappy posts.

 

[DaedalusX]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

Why are you hiding the fact that you're TOO LAZY to actually analyze historical Superbowl winners?

Forget going back 30 years, you're too lazy for that, why don't you spend 1 minute looking at the past 10 Superbowl winners.

Aside from the fluke 2006 Colts season when multiple positive events happened for them to win a ring, you have ZERO proof or substance behind any of your crappy posts.

Let me rephrase this for you:

Why are you hiding the fact that you're throwing out blanket statements about historical Superbowl winners wrapped in a stat sheet, as if it implies a cause and not just a correlation?

Forget going back 30 years, you're thinking too black and white for that, why don't you spend 1 minute looking at the past 10 Superbowl winners, which includes the Colts.

Aside from the fluke helmet catch and a game when multiple positive events happened for the Giants to win a ring, you have ZERO proof or substance behind any of your crappy posts.

Seriously, pop a xanax. You need it.

 

[patsfan-1982]

will pre moss and welker they had to be more creative on O

i dont think the OL was ever great for the pats but they ran a lot of screens to get the ball out of he's hands faster if the line was that great in SB years i think light would have been a all pro then but as soon as brady started throwing for 4000 yerds and 50 TD light became all pro

i think with moss welker and 50 TD brady there heads got big and they think they can just line up VS any D and play back yerd pitch and catch football they stoped being creative

ill even take 2008 offense over this one they ran for 159 yerds a game and got matt out of the pocket to avoid geting sacked

i know brady is not as mobile as matt but they can run a bootleg dose every pass have to come out of shotgun

 

[Oswlek]

Didn't the Patriots just a few weeks prior beat the big, bad NY Giants by scoring 38 points on them in cold weather? Or was that my imagination.

NE didn't lose that game because they were finese, they lost it because Brady's ankle prohibited pocket movement and muddled up the timing between the OL and QB, thus granting the DL a serious advantage.

Even then they had the lead late and only lost it because of the worst game winning drive in playoff history.

 

[maverick4]

Even then they had the lead late and only lost it because of the worst game winning drive in playoff history.

I know you were likely referring to Eli's drive, but the same could be said about our own drive to end the game by calling 4 straight hail mary's, needing only 40 yards to tie with a FG and with all three timeouts.

 

[Oswlek]

I know you were likely referring to Eli's drive, but the same could be said about our own drive to end the game by calling 4 straight hail mary's, needing only 40 yards to tie with a FG and with all three timeouts.

You realize he was sacked on 2nd down, right?

You have no idea what play was called on that one. On 3rd and forever of course they are going to call deeper routes.

That said, I must admit that this is nice creative way to ignore the crux of my post.