2005 Playoffs

[RobertWeathers]

healthy 2015 Pats smoke the 2001 Pats

Gronk, oline, JE11 and Lewis......They win 7 or 8 out of 10.

 

[tasmlab]

Sorry folks but that 05 team was average. Couldn't run the ball. Artrell Hawkins at safety. Asante wasn't Asante yet. Rookie Hobbs on the other side. Oline average.

I don't remember this, but Bam Childress, off the practice squad, played DB that year for some snaps.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I don't remember this, but Bam Childress, off the practice squad, played DB that year for some snaps.

Most likely.

 

[pazrul72]

The 2001 team would have rolled the 05, 06, 08, 09-13 teams.

My question would be what rules are those games played with? The 2001 NE patriots were an all around average team that did one thing and one thing only EXCEPTIONALLY well. They intimidated and beat the living daylights out of receivers. Put that d in today's game and they would make Brandon Browner look like a penalty free corner. Part of the patriots appeal that year was how they got the very most out of a not so talented roster. Go back and look at the scores, they weren't 17 point beatdowns a lot of them were 16-13 against the jets kind of games. That offense was the epitome of mediocre with an above average run game and a billion ways to run a 5 yard screen.

I can see an argument for if those teams each played 10 games against the others 01 being 5-5 or so against 06 And 09. Other then that with today's rules they would get smoked but an elite Tom Brady picking them apart. Miles and miles of heart with a total buy in on the team philosophy would get them a win or three but both lines on that 01 team just weren't that good and football is won in the trenches.

 

[RobertWeathers]

My question would be what rules are those games played with? The 2001 NE patriots were an all around average team that did one thing and one thing only EXCEPTIONALLY well. They intimidated and beat the living daylights out of receivers. Put that d in today's game and they would make Brandon Browner look like a penalty free corner. Part of the patriots appeal that year was how they got the very most out of a not so talented roster. Go back and look at the scores, they weren't 17 point beatdowns a lot of them were 16-13 against the jets kind of games. That offense was the epitome of mediocre with an above average run game and a billion ways to run a 5 yard screen.

I can see an argument for if those teams each played 10 games against the others 01 being 5-5 or so against 06 And 09. Other then that with today's rules they would get smoked but an elite Tom Brady picking them apart. Miles and miles of heart with a total buy in on the team philosophy would get them a win or three but both lines on that 01 team just weren't that good and football is won in the trenches.

All-around average teams dont win 11 of their last 12 allow 15ppg in that span and finish 6th in offense.

Were the 60s Packers lousy offensively because they ran the power sweep 25 times a game? No one could stop the screen play which is why they ran it all the time.

They beat a Raider team that in 2000 went to the AFCCG and the 2002 SB, a 13-3 Steeler team on the road that finished #1 in D and a Rams team that won it all in 1999 and finished 14-2 with an absurd offense and solid D

Go back and look the roster for that team. I have a post 2 pages back that breaks down HoF, pro-bowler and solid NFLers. That was 4/5th of the roster.

The core of that team is "The Dynasty" that finally started playing like it 8 games into the season and continued from there. Heck 1/2 the roster was on the 03 and 04 teams.

To say the 01 team was average and weren't that good is not accurate.

 

[Shockt327]

It's not laughable. They had great players.

The issue is that I dont agree with the very foundation of you argument. If you truly want to stack rank how good they were you need to look at track record and talent of core of those teams and the players.

That is how you measure greatness. For example, were the 1974 Steelers better than the 1977 Cowboys? Yes. Were the 1989 49ers better than the 87 Skins. Yes. Etc. etc.

So when asked if the 2001 NEP are better than the 2005 Steelers, yes they were.

If it helps you my list of the last 20 SB champions? ...fine.

All bolded teams were not as good as the 2001 Patriots. They were part of a dominant dynasty . Only exceptional teams were better than that one.

SB31 Packers
32 Broncos
33 Broncos
34 Rams
35 Ravens
36 Pats
37 Buccaneers
38 Pats
39 Pats
40 Steelers
41 Colts
42 Giatns
43 Steelers
44 Saints
45 Packers
46 Giants
47 Ravens
48 Seahawks
49 Patriots
50 Broncos

So, the 96 Packers, 97-98 Broncos, and the 2014 Seahawks are the only non-NE teams better than the '01 Pats?

This is just laughable.

By your own ridiculous logic, the 2002 Pats, who went 9-7 and missed the playoffs, should be right up there with the SB winning teams from any NFL dynasty. What utter nonsense.

 

[RobertWeathers]

So, the 96 Packers, 97-98 Broncos, and the 2014 Seahawks are the only non-NE teams better than the '01 Pats?

This is just laughable.

By your own ridiculous logic, the 2002 Pats, who went 9-7 and missed the playoffs, should be right up there with the SB winning teams from any NFL dynasty. What utter nonsense.

Study the 01 roster, look at their accomplishments and lets have a reasonable discussion.

 

[TennisBallHead]

The 2003 Pats won by scores of 17-6, 19-13, 9-3, and 12-0 (twice!).

They won games by 7, 8, 6, 6, 4, 3, 4, and 5. They only won two games by a blowout, Eagles 31-10 and Bills 31-0.

Then they won in the playoffs by 3, 10, and 3.

Yet they get called an all-time team while the 2001 Patriots would have lost to the crappy 05 team?

 

[Shockt327]

Study the 01 roster, look at their accomplishments and lets have a reasonable discussion.

They went 9-7 in 2002. That's their "accomplishment."

Now answer my question. Are you actually trying to imply that the 2002 Pats are right up there with the SB winning teams from any NFL dynasty? Because that's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[RobertWeathers]

They went 9-7 in 2002. That's their "accomplishment."

Now answer my question. Are you actually trying to imply that the 2002 Pats are right up there with the SB winning teams from any NFL dynasty? Because that's absolutely ridiculous.

No. I said the 01 team was.

You underrate them which is fine

 

[Shockt327]

No. I said the 01 team was.

You underrate them which is fine

Answer my question.

Are the 2002 Pats are right up there with the SB winning teams from any NFL dynasty?

Well? You actually tried to claim that a team's roster, made up of players who were a part of a dynasty, even if in a weaker SB winning year, must assuredly be better than a SB winning team who could only win it all just once or twice.

So, why doesn't this flawed logic apply to 2002? I took your advise; I'm looking at that roster. That 2002 team had the same key contributors as the 2001 team. Plus, they even added Branch, Givens, Graham, & Fauria. All key contributors to their 2003 and 2004 SB wins. So? What's your answer? Stop dodging the question. Just answer it.

 

[pazrul72]

All-around average teams dont win 11 of their last 12 allow 15ppg in that span and finish 6th in offense.

Were the 60s Packers lousy offensively because they ran the power sweep 25 times a game? No one could stop the screen play which is why they ran it all the time.

They beat a Raider team that in 2000 went to the AFCCG and the 2002 SB, a 13-3 Steeler team on the road that finished #1 in D and a Rams team that won it all in 1999 and finished 14-2 with an absurd offense and solid D

Go back and look the roster for that team. I have a post 2 pages back that breaks down HoF, pro-bowler and solid NFLers. That was 4/5th of the roster.

The core of that team is "The Dynasty" that finally started playing like it 8 games into the season and continued from there. Heck 1/2 the roster was on the 03 and 04 teams.

To say the 01 team was average and weren't that good is not accurate.

RW you are a solid poster and somebody whose opinion I look forward to. Nice sense of humor helps too. That said I just reread your break down of the roster and the amount of solid careers made me want to scream. Antwain Smith is a perfect example of that whole roster. He got crucial yards when they needed them most and was very dependable THAT year. He broke 1000 yards and was the face of the running game. He also got 20-25 carries a game and his biggest rush was a busted tackle up the middle against buffalo for 30 something yards. Not flashy and sure as hell not a top 10 back but it led to wins that year. Look at the 02 team, same guy, not nearly as effective and back to his more usual career norms which is why the Bills cut him and the pats could pick him up. The only real strength I see was the secondary with law and Milloy in their prime as well as Otis "old man" smith had not hit the age wall just yet. Plus tebucky "lay the wood" Jones played out of his mind punishing people.

Besides that I think you are romantisizing the past. 01 Bru Vrabs and McGinest were not the 04 versions of themselves yet. Seymour and Light were rookies and played as such. I mean seriously when Bobby Hamilton and Anthony Pleasant (god bless em) were your pass rush you got big issues. Playing in the league for 10 years is an accomplishment but it doesn't mean you were ever all that talented or had a "solid career". What did happen is that team played out of their minds for half a season and got every break the football gods could send them. Yes beating the raiders steelers and rams is impressive and no doubt is one of the all time great runs but I would bet ALOT of money if they had to do it 100 times they win the Super Bowl no more then 5 of them. Bill himself said to Ernie "can you believe we beat them with this team?" It goes down as one of the all time greatest coaching jobs BECAUSE they were so low on talent.

Now don't get me wrong that 01 team still is probably my favorite because heart can talent and they had miles and miles of it. Watching them come out of the tunnel as a jumping swirling mass to this day gives me goosebumps. Who really cares if the odds were 5 outta 100 they did it and made an entire region believe. "And the...kick....is good! It's good! The patriots are Super Bowl champions! The patriots are super bowl champions!!!"

 

[RobertWeathers]

Answer my question.

Are the 2002 Pats are right up there with the SB winning teams from any NFL dynasty?

Well? You actually tried to claim that a team's roster, made up of players who were a part of a dynasty, even if in a weaker SB winning year, must assuredly be better than a SB winning team who could only win it all just once or twice.

So, why doesn't this flawed logic apply to 2002? I took your advise; I'm looking at that roster. That 2002 team had the same key contributors as the 2001 team. Plus, they even added Branch, Givens, Graham, & Fauria. All key contributors to their 2003 and 2004 SB wins. So? What's your answer? Stop dodging the question. Just answer it.

I will answer your question with a question.

Are the 1977 Steelers right up there? How about the 1985 or 1986 49ers? 1964 Packers?

Sometimes during a team's dynasty years, whether it be due to injuries, tougher schedules, unlucky bounce or a key contributor from a championship team finally shows his age, they don't get it done the following year. With that said, because they have a great coach, great QB and core offensive and defensive players, they can add a few key contributors and win the championship the following year.

Clearly the 02 team was not as good as the 01 or 03 teams and to compare them to to the 2013 Seahawks is silly- which I never did because they didn't win the SB.

 

[brdmaverick]

Believe me, we're looking at the same 2001 roster. I guess I just see it very differently.

You look at it and say "Here we have one of the best and/or better than average Super Bowl winning teams in history (or at least the past 20 years)".

I look at it and say "Wow, that's amazing that we won with this team and I'll sure as heck take it and cherish it."

 

[Shockt327]

I will answer your question with a question.

Are the 1977 Steelers right up there? How about the 1985 or 1986 49ers? 1964 Packers?

Sometimes during a team's dynasty years, whether it be due to injuries, tougher schedules, unlucky bounce or a key contributor from a championship team finally shows his age, they don't get it done the following year. With that said, because they have a great coach, great QB and core offensive and defensive players, they can add a few key contributors and win the championship the following year.

Clearly the 02 team was not as good as the 01 or 03 teams and to compare them to to the 2013 Seahawks is silly- which I never did because they didn't win the SB.

Congrats! This is a perfectly genuine and rational point you've just made. With that being said; Yes, I absolutely believe that a SB caliber team, even one with a full roster, can absolutely catch a bad break to two, have a key injury, or have a tough schedule; and can absolutely just sort of come up short in the post-season. It happens.

But! That very same logic also rings true in an inverse manner. Sometimes an up and coming franchise, that doesn't quite have all the personnel in place just yet, that plays in weaker conference, that might have a slightly easier schedule in their division (due to a losing season the year before). But! Still has a young QB that shows flashes of brilliance, and still has a coach who can out-think the competition, can go on a hot-streak at just the right time, getting just the right call, getting the right break...can absolutely defy the odds and walk away with a Super Bowl trophy. It's a great story, too. A team you'll never forget.

But just because they won it all in 2001, doesn't mean that it'll happen year after year against any team you potentially throw at them...especially when the competition is other SB winners. Because you can't expect to have one of the all-time worst blizzards come along and utterly neutralize the usual level of play, or expect the QB to get bailed out by an obscure rule that that keeps the drive alive in their last chance to tie. You can't expect to win an AFCCG on a punt return and a blocked kick for key TDs; even if you have a genuinely brilliant special teams lineup, too. That mastermind head coach cannot continue to fool a powerhouse offense by continuing to throw everything but the kitchen sink at them play-after-play (especially when that same offense started to figure it out in time for the 4th Q). No. That's not how football works in the long term. And that's why Belichick knew he had to replace 40% of that roster, that's why the same group of starters fell short in 2002. That's why your initial claim is such a stretch. Clearly the 2001 team isn't up to the same level as most other SB winners, but I'm not going to ignore this just because their franchise surpassed that standard in later years.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Congrats! This is a perfectly genuine and rational point you've just made. With that being said; Yes, I absolutely believe that a SB caliber team, even one with a full roster, can absolutely catch a bad break to two, have a key injury, or have a tough schedule; and can absolutely just sort of come up short in the post-season. It happens.

But! That very same logic also rings true in an inverse manner. Sometimes an up and coming franchise, that doesn't quite have all the personnel in place just yet, that plays in weaker conference, that might have a slightly easier schedule in their division (due to a losing season the year before). But! Still has a young QB that shows flashes of brilliance, and still has a coach who can out-think the competition, can go on a hot-streak at just the right time, getting just the right call, getting the right break...can absolutely defy the odds and walk away with a Super Bowl trophy. It's a great story, too. A team you'll never forget.

But just because they won it all in 2001, doesn't mean that it'll happen year after year against any team you potentially throw at them...especially when the competition is other SB winners. Because you can't expect to have one of the all-time worst blizzards come along and utterly neutralize the usual level of play, or expect the QB to get bailed out by an obscure rule that that keeps the drive alive in their last chance to tie. You can't expect to win an AFCCG on a punt return and a blocked kick for key TDs; even if you have a genuinely brilliant special teams lineup, too. That mastermind head coach cannot continue to fool a powerhouse offense by continuing to throw everything but the kitchen sink at them play-after-play (especially when that same offense started to figure it out in time for the 4th Q). No. That's not how football works in the long term. And that's why Belichick knew he had to replace 40% of that roster, that's why the same group of starters fell short in 2002. That's why your initial claim is such a stretch. Clearly the 2001 team isn't up to the same level as most other SB winners, but I'm not going to ignore this just because their franchise surpassed that standard in later years.

You can look at that way too. I chose not to .