Pre 2007 vs. Post 2007 Offense

[IcyPatriot]

The Jet's beat us like we won in 2001 ... by busting us in the mouth.
I'm an old school football guy ... all this finesse stuff sickens me.

 

[wpdougie2180]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

I've said this for a long time.

Pass-happy offenses which throw up tons of points don't generally win SBs. They tend to get upset by more balanced power teams with running games and tough defenses. Consider favored San Francisco losing to the Giants 15-13 in 1990 (and the Bills losing in the next game), record-setting Minnesota being upset by Atlanta in the 1998 AFCCG, and NE losing to the Giants in the 2007 SB. Occasionally a team may pull it off, such as St. Louis narrowly escaping Tennessee in the 1999 SB. But not very often.

All of these are not very good examples if you look at each individual game for instance in the 49ers-Giants game the running back fumbles with the lead with less than 3 mins. left in the game, then the Bills lose because the kicker misses a very makeable FG, Minnesota lost because a Kicker who hadn't missed all year missed a easy FG that would have put them up 10 and the Defense allowed Atlanta to score the game tying and game winning points without the offense every seeing the field, and the GTSNBM the pats were up with less than 2 min left when the defense allowed the winning score.

So please explain to me how any of those games are good examples of what your saying when every one of those teams were winning at the end of the game or had a chance to win and lost through no fault of the "pass-happy" offenses.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

The 2007 offense was as flawless as you can get. No way would I prefer another of our past offenses to that one. People forget that #1 you don't necessarily need to run the ball to chew up clock and #2 we DID have a great run attack down the stretch in '07. When Brady had a poor game in the AFCC, guess who was there to carry the offense - Maroney and Faulk. And that same finesse offense took the ball with 9 minutes left in the game and held the ball until the game was over. I'm too lazy to look it up but I'm guessing TOP was well in our favorite in the Jacksonville game too.

If our Oline gets manhandled the way it did in SB42, it doesn't matter if you pass, run, try screens you're not going to have a good day. And the offense DID score on the last drive when it had to, it just so happened that the Giants got the last good shot at a winning score.

 

[mayoclinic]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

All of these are not very good examples if you look at each individual game for instance in the 49ers-Giants game the running back fumbles with the lead with less than 3 mins. left in the game, then the Bills lose because the kicker misses a very makeable FG, Minnesota lost because a Kicker who hadn't missed all year missed a easy FG that would have put them up 10 and the Defense allowed Atlanta to score the game tying and game winning points without the offense every seeing the field, and the GTSNBM the pats were up with less than 2 min left when the defense allowed the winning score.

So please explain to me how any of those games are good examples of what your saying when every one of those teams were winning at the end of the game or had a chance to win and lost through no fault of the "pass-happy" offenses.

I'm aware of the game histories. But the fact is, those offensive juggernauts all lost, as did the 2007 Pats in the SB, as did the 2001 Rams in the SB. Saying they had chances to win isn't enough. Saying they shot themselves in the foot isn't enough - the opposing team put them in a position for that to happen.

Pass happy teams that tend to blow most opponents out of the water don't generally do well when someone smashes them in the face, refuses to back down, gets them in a close game, and puts the pressure on. They're used to building up leads and playing from well ahead. They tend to make mistakes once their not playing from strength. In all of those games, the opponent took the favored offensive juggernaut out of their game and disrupted them, and the favored team made uncharacteristic errors - just like the Pats did in the 2007 SB.

If I had to hazard a guess this early on in the season, current offensive juggernaut and media darling New Orleans will not win the SB and probably won't make it there. They'll put up lots of points and wow people on the way, but at some point in the postseason someone - probably a more conservative, smashmouth team like the Giants - will attack them, knock them around, disrupt their flow, and get them in a close game. And history says they won't know what to do when that happens.

 

[MichaelL]

I disagree...while the teams you cite were indeed offensive juggernauts, none of them had particularly good defenses. Besides, you are citing 1 very close NFC CG, and 2 very close SB wins by more defense-oriented teams, yet you ignore 2 very close SBs(2000 and 2006) won by those same offense-oriented teams. What this proves is that a great offense with a mediocre defense should prepare for a close SB game. I say that all this proves is that the games can go either way.

If you go back further to the dominant 49-ers and Cowboys teams of the late 80's and early 90's, they won by great offense with a good defense and those games weren't even close. If you want a blowout SB game, then you need a great offense with a better than average defense at least. 2 great defenses will give you Giants-Ravens 2002

 

[maverick4]

If our Oline gets manhandled the way it did in SB42, it doesn't matter if you pass, run, try screens you're not going to have a good day. And the offense DID score on the last drive when it had to, it just so happened that the Giants got the last good shot at a winning score.

Stop rewriting history.

The PATRIOTS had the ball last, needing 40 yards to tie the game with a FG, having all 3 timeouts left. They pissed the game away with 4 straight hail mary's for no reason.

 

[dhamz]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

I've said this for a long time.

Pass-happy offenses which throw up tons of points don't generally win SBs. They tend to get upset by more balanced power teams with running games and tough defenses. Consider favored San Francisco losing to the Giants 15-13 in 1990

Are the 49ers really a good example of how passing offenses don't result in championships? They won 5.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Stop rewriting history.

The PATRIOTS had the ball last, needing 40 yards to tie the game with a FG, having all 3 timeouts left. They pissed the game away with 4 straight hail mary's for no reason.

They had 30 seconds and 40 yards would've got them a 60 yard attempt. I don't agree with the hail mary's either but chances are it wouldn't have made a difference in that situation. Too close to call if anything.

 

[maverick4]

They had 30 seconds and 40 yards would've got them a 60 yard attempt. I don't agree with the hail mary's either but chances are it wouldn't have made a difference in that situation. Too close to call if anything.

Then stop claiming the Pats didn't have a drive at the end. They clearly did have a legit chance, and failed. We got the ball back after the Giants scored, with all three timeouts to use. By the way, McDaniels called the same crappy plays/drive to end game 1 this year with the long sideline bombs, only he got bailed out this time by a miracle Stokley play.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Then stop claiming the Pats didn't have a drive at the end. They clearly did have a legit chance, and failed. We got the ball back after the Giants scored, with all three timeouts to use. By the way, McDaniels called the same crappy plays/drive to end game 1 this year with the long sideline bombs, only he got bailed out this time by a miracle Stokley play.

Sometimes urinating takes me longer than 30 seconds

 

[maverick4]

Sometimes urinating takes me longer than 30 seconds

With all three timeouts left and the middle of the field open, you could urinate three separate times over an hour.

 

[MichaelL]

Re: Pre 2007 vs Post 2007 Offense

I've said this for a long time.

Pass-happy offenses which throw up tons of points don't generally win SBs. They tend to get upset by more balanced power teams with running games and tough defenses. Consider favored San Francisco losing to the Giants 15-13 in 1990 (and the Bills losing in the next game), record-setting Minnesota being upset by Atlanta in the 1998 AFCCG, St. Louis being upset by NE in 2001, Indy losing to NE in 2003-2004, and NE losing to the Giants in the 2007 SB. Occasionally a team may pull it off, such as St. Louis narrowly escaping Tennessee in the 1999 SB. But not very often.
.

Apologies, but to which SF-Giants SB are you referring?

1) SF has never lost a SB, they have 5 championships
2) In 1990 it was SF-Broncos 55-10...what I would call a blowout by a pass-happy team with an above average defense.
3) The following year Giants beat the Bills 20-19.
4) Previous year SF-Bengals 20-16

 

[duff5678]

the 04 offense without question. for the life of me i don't know why these guys don't run a traditional west coast offense. with bradys accuracy and decision making someone would always be open. at the least id like to see more 3 and 5 step drops from under center

 

[Satchboogie3]

I like to use STATS and NUMBERS to back up my arguments, not just "Oh, I liked the style".

The Pre-2007 offense was pretty good, but lets take a look at just how good they were:
2001-2006 they averaged 7th in the League in points scored and 13.6th in the league in yards of offense.
2007 they were obviously 1st in NFL history in both categories
2008 they were 8th in points and 5th in yards with CASSEL.

From those stats alone, it's a no brainer. You aren't awarded style points, all that matters is that you score more points than your opponent. So how could you possible argue that the pre 07 offense was "better" or "preferable" to an offense that is FAR FAR more productive.

Here are some splits from the 07 season:
49% 3rd down con, 71% 4th down con(amazing considering all the 4th downs they elected to go for) Time of possession- 32:31 (2nd in NFL)

Compare that to 2004, the best "pre '07" offense we had:
45% 3rd down con, 40% 4th down con, 31:22 TOP

All the other "pre '07" offenses managed between 34-44% 3rd down con and under 30:00 TOP

Also, to compare how "productive" our running game was in '07 (again, you can argue it was because of the pass, but that doesn't really matter. It doesn't matter how or why you gain the yards), we averaged:
4.1 y/a, had 17 TD, 124 1st downs, and rushed for 1850 yards.
Compared to:
3.8 y/a, 15 TD, 101 1st downs, 1800 yards. in 2001
3.8 y/a, 9 TD, 99 1st downs, 1500 yards in 2002
3.4 y/a, 9 TD, 91 1st downs, 1600 yards in 2003
4.1 y/a, 15 TD, 120 1st downs, 2100 yards in 2004
3.4 y/a, 16 TD, 101 1st downs, 1500 yards in 2005
3.9 y/a, 20 TD, 121 1st downs, 1950 yards in 2006

So when exactly did NE have that "dominant" running game everyone has been complaining that we "lack". It looks to me like 2007 was one of our best running games.

So, I ask of those who don't like our offense, is there anything to support your feelings? Please, don't give me "But look at the Superbowl", Plenty of teams with great offenses won. Colt's won in '06, every team from '83-'99 had a top 3 offense (most the #1). More importantly, though, is that the teams that win the SB are almost always a good, overall team. Top 10 offense and defense, often top 3 of both. The Patriots in 07, for all those haters out there, still had a the top 4 ranked defense (both points and yards) in the NFL. It was an upset, the Patriots were the better team, but the better team doesn't always win, as we all know.

 

[maverick4]

More importantly, though, is that the teams that win the SB are almost always a good, overall team. Top 10 offense and defense, often top 3 of both. The Patriots in 07, for all those haters out there, still had a the top 4 ranked defense (both points and yards) in the NFL. It was an upset, the Patriots were the better team, but the better team doesn't always win, as we all know.

This is the key piece you aren't giving enough credit.

The 2007 team wasn't a balanced team. You could replace everything you wrote about the 'Patriots' with '2001 Rams' (top offense, top 3 defense), and it sounds like you'd still be confused about why the statistically superior team lost.

Citing stats to determine who was better, doesn't tell the entire picture.

Amazing how a fan base which directly experienced over-hyped 01 Rams and 03-04 Colts offenses being shut down, somehow over the next few years does a 180 and suddenly falls in love with high scoring finesse offenses which get stuffed by physical defenses. It's not about stats, it's about having a balanced pass/run philosophy. Teams know we aren't truly committed to the run and are willing to give it to us, because they know we'll go away from it. It's very similar to how Belichick played dime all day against the 2001 Rams, knowing Martz wouldn't use Faulk to run it much.

 

[Satchboogie3]

This is the key piece you aren't giving enough credit.

The 2007 team wasn't a balanced team. You could replace everything you wrote with 2001 Rams (top offense, top 3 defense), and it sounds like you'd still be confused about why the statistically superior team lost.

Citing stats to determine who was better, doesn't tell the entire picture.

Amazing how a fan base which directly experienced over-hyped 01 Rams and 03-04 Colts offenses being shut down, somehow over the next few years does a 180 and suddenly falls in love with high scoring finesse offenses which get stuffed by physical defenses. It's not about stats, it's about having a balanced pass/run philosophy. Teams know we aren't truly committed to the run and are willing to give it to us, because they know we'll go away from it.

Lol. What you don't get is the fact that the Patriots weren't CLEARLY better than the Rams. The Rams were a juggernaut and the Pats were probably just as good. There is a reason why they split the season series (Rams won regular season game). If you play out that '01 Superbowl, I HIGHLY doubt that the Patriots would win more than 50% of the time. Just because you win the Superbowl, doesn't mean you are better (by any margin) than the team you beat (look no further than the Giants).

 

[maverick4]

The Rams were a juggernaut and the Pats were probably just as good. There is a reason why they split the season series (Rams won regular season game). If you play out that '01 Superbowl, I HIGHLY doubt that the Patriots would win more than 50% of the time. Just because you win the Superbowl, doesn't mean you are better (by any margin) than the team you beat (look no further than the Giants).

Did you just say the 2001 Pats team was just as good as that 2001 Rams team? I just realized I'm wasting my time talking to a lunatic. Everyone sane considers that game to be a major upset.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Amazing how a fan base which directly experienced over-hyped 01 Rams and 03-04 Colts offenses being shut down, somehow over the next few years does a 180 and suddenly falls in love with high scoring finesse offenses which get stuffed by physical defenses. It's not about stats, it's about having a balanced pass/run philosophy. Teams know we aren't truly committed to the run and are willing to give it to us, because they know we'll go away from it. It's very similar to how Belichick played dime all day against the 2001 Rams, knowing Martz wouldn't use Faulk to run it much.

Read my post again. Where are you getting this notion that the '07 Pats weren't "committed" to the run or were just a finesse offense? There are ZERO stats/evidence to back that up. Zilch.

Again, the '03 and '04 Colts lost because they faced a deadly Patriot defense and the Colts themselves had a bad offense.

Another argument against the whole "Well, the 2007 defense was covered up by the offense, the numbers don't tell the truth." If that is the case, than how do you explain high powered-passing offenses, like the Colts, that also have bad defenses have stats that reflect that, but somehow, the Pats '07 defense didn't? I don't follow that.

Finally, you argue that a "high-powered" offense can't beat good defenses, but again, that isn't supported by stats. In '07, the Patriots faced 9 top 10 defenses, they averaged 34 PPG.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Did you just say the 2001 Pats team was just as good as that 2001 Rams team? I just realized I'm wasting my time talking to a lunatic. Everyone sane considers that game to be a major upset.

No crap it was an upset, that my whole damned point, I was just trying to be a little, well, it's the Patriots! My point is that the better team doesn't always come out on top.

 

[RayClay]

From those stats alone, it's a no brainer. You aren't awarded style points, all that matters is that you score more points than your opponent. So how could you possible argue that the pre 07 offense was "better" or "preferable" to an offense that is FAR FAR more productive.

No, all that matters is you score 1 point more than your opponent in an individual game. The other points are superfluous.

Then, win enough games to get in the playoffs, enough for top position is better, but not essential.

Then, win the last game of the season.

This is what an offense/defense need to do. We did it three times, it's worth looking at how we did it IMO.