Here are a couple of other stats that I remember from those years that have stuck with me because they belie the fact that the Pats had a "dominant" defense in those years. In fact in 2001 and 2003 the Pats D was ANYTHING but dominant. In both those championship years the Pats D ranked in the mid 20's in total D (IIRC_
What has been consistent in all of BB years here, I bet (because I'm too lazy to look it up....and I know someone more industrious will
) is that there is usually a big gap between where the Pats rank in total yards, and where they rank in scoring.
Another interesting thing I recall from those days was that the Pats usually were in the top 10 in sacks while never having any individual double digit sackers.
One of my favorite stats from 2003 was that team won TEN games against opponents that won 10 games or more. Think about that for a second. Of the 17 games the Pats won that season, TEN times they had to beat a team good enough to have won 10 or more games. Compare that, for example to the "undefeated" Dolphin team that, IIRC, beat just 2 teams that had winning records in the regular season....or last year's Pats team
BTW- Antwain Smith's major role in those 2 seasons was to NOT lose yardage, and make most of his short yardage opportunities and punch it in on the GL BB used the ground game to eat time and keep games close. Smith was BJGE before there was a BJGE. Nothing snazzy, but very dependable
Disclaimer - I know its fashionable to remember the days when the Pats had what was considered one of the top defenses in the league (or at least in the top half). But it should also be remembered that this was before "spread-type" offenses became common and WR's who were over 6' or 200lbs were RARE. Plus I think the overall level of QB play is better now than then. And THEN remember that this was all before Polian highjacked the rules committee