2006 statistical comparison to 2003/4

[pats1]

How about those teams' records against teams with winning records - 7-0 in 2003 and 7-1 in 2004??

Yes, thank you. But that is only one stat out of many.

 

[pats1]

My opinion remains that the 2003 team is hurt in statisical comparisons by a game that was played days after a captain was released. I do not think that the Pats had such an excuse for the Miami game.

But aren't good teams those that are mentally strong and don't make excuses?

 

[JoeSixPat]

I actually agree with you. I don't think anyone can reasonably expect the offense to be as good as it was with Givens and Branch.

But that's the point - Pats1 proved that 2006 IS as good as the 2003/2004 offense - right about in the middle of the two if I recall.

So since we all admit that's not the case in reality, what does that say about relying on stats, rather than your eyes and your gut?

 

[pats1]

From an eyeball those 2003/2004 teams have whatever it is that separates championship teams from very, very good teams. And that was evident throughout the regular season. This team has yet to show me that it has "it" whatever it is that causes teams to have "just one of those things".

That "it" likely came in the playoffs, right?

I doubt a difference in a loss or two during the regular season would give the 2003/4 team "it" but the 2006 team no "it" during the regular season.

 

[pats1]

But that's the point - Pats1 proved that 2006 IS as good as the 2003/2004 offense - right about in the middle of the two if I recall.

So since we all admit that's not the case in reality, what does that say about relying on stats, rather than your eyes and your gut?

We all admitted that the 2003 offense was better than the 2006 offense? When did this happen?!?!

 

[pats1]

How??

The 2003 Pats would look much better in most of the 2003 offensive rankings and some of the 2003 defensive rankings if they had just played an average game against the Bills in the Week 1 game.

I doubt it would make that drastic a difference.

Besides, it's that whole "if" thing again. "If" you take away the Pats' bad performance in week 1 in 2003, you have a pretty good season. Sure.

If you take away the first floor of a building, you no longer have a building any more.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

But that's the point - Pats1 proved that 2006 IS as good as the 2003/2004 offense - right about in the middle of the two if I recall.

So since we all admit that's not the case in reality, what does that say about relying on stats, rather than your eyes and your gut?

I am closer to his side than yours. On your side, I agree that when push comes to shove, we almost had to be better with WR Brady was more comfortable with. However, over 16 (or 14 so far) games, the stats can only lie so much. The offense didn't go from great to bad. Our OC doesn't suck.

 

[JoeSixPat]

We all admitted that the 2003 offense was better than the 2006 offense? When did this happen?!?!

I was pretty sure that the vast majority of posters in this thread acknowledged that the 2006 offense is not as good as the 2003/2004 offenses - some even had *gasp* facts to prove it!

 

[pats1]

Yes, but where are your stats to prove it

OK - two Lombardi's - but what else?

Has the 2006 team even had a chance to get a Lombardi yet?

No.

 

[pats1]

I was pretty sure that the vast majority of posters in this thread acknowledged that the 2006 offense is not as good as the 2003/2004 offenses - some even had *gasp* facts to prove it!

I agree that the 2006 offense isn't as good as the 2004 offense (*gasp* - my stats prove it!).

But you can't tell me you seriously believe Antowain Smith and the 2003 offense was better than the current 2006 offense. (*gasp* - my stats prove it!)

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

But you can't tell me you seriously believe Antowain Smith and the 2003 offense was better than the current 2006 offense. (*gasp* - my stats prove it!)

RIght now I would say it's no better - once Maroney is back then I think the 2006 offense is better. We won't get to where we were in 2004 though.

 

[pats1]

RIght now I would say it's no better - once Maroney is back then I think the 2006 offense is better. We won't get to where we were in 2004 though.

Right now, I'll give that to you. Without O'Callaghan, Watson, and Maroney. Sure.

But not including those 3 in the "2006 offense" wouldn't make sense.

 

[hwc]

Just to point out the obvious. Whether the 2006 Patriots could beat the 2003 Patriots is irrelevant.

The only thing that matters is: can the 2006 Patriots beat the 2006 championship contending teams. Of course things can change, but so far, the 2006 Patriots have not demonstrated that they can. Specifically, they have lost badly to the Broncos and the Colts at home and lost two games to division rivals -- the Miami game a total blowout.

 

[Miguel]

But I don't like the arguments on the other side :
Take out games or plays to make the stats say what people want.
I don't buy any of the above.

And yet you brought up turnovers as the reason that the 2006 Pats lost to the Jets and Colts.

 

[Miguel]

Yes, thank you. But that is only one stat out of many.

According to CHFF that stat is rather predictive of a championship team.

 

[Miguel]

That "it" likely came in the playoffs, right?

No.

I doubt a difference in a loss or two during the regular season would give the 2003/4 team "it" but the 2006 team no "it" during the regular season.

The "It" was shown consistently during the regular season by those teams. There was no part of the 2004 season in which I did not think that the Pats were THE leading contender for the Super Bowl. That team consistently put quarters/games of championship-level play against good teams. Once the 2003 team got over the Milloy release, that team consistently played at a championship-level against good teams.

 

[Miguel]

I guess that it comes down to this.

My eyeballs told me during the regular season that the 2003/2004 teams were a championship team. I saw those teams regularly play at a high level during the regular season. If the 2003/2004 teams played as many games against weak opposition or if the 2006 team had to play as many good teams, the statistical comparison would greatly favor the SB champion teams. The 2003 team BEAT 3 12-4 teams. The 2006 Pats will not PLAY, let alone beat, 3 teams with at least 12 wins.The 2003 team BEAT 7 teams with at least 10 wins.The 2006 team will not play, let alone beat, 7 teams with at least 10 wins. Given a tougher schedule, it is no wonder that the 2003 team does not do well as the 2006 teams in most stats.

Out of the 14 games the Pats played this year, how many of them were played at a championship-level??

Out of the games against good teams, how many of them did the Pats played well in??

I can't explain what "it" is. But those teams had "it" and they showed "it" against the good teams in the regular season. I ask how many times this season has the 2006 Patriots demonstrated on the field, not in the stats, that they had "it".IMO, not many.

 

[pats1]

The 2003 team BEAT 7 teams with at least 10 wins.The 2006 team will not play, let alone beat, 7 teams with at least 10 wins.

So the 2003/4 teams are better because they did something that would have been impossible for the 2006 team to have done?

Out of the 14 games the Pats played this year, how many of them were played at a championship-level??

Cincinnati? Minnesota? Houston? Buffalo? Green Bay? Chicago?

Ask the same question about the 2004 team - which of these games were played at "championship level?"

-Colts, W, -- No (The 2006 Pats/Colts was just as close)
-Cardinals, W, -- Yes
-Bills, W, -- Yes
-Dolphins, W -- Yes
-Seahawks, W -- No (Very close game)
-Jets, W -- No
-Steelers, L -- No
-Rams, W -- Yes
-Bills, W -- Yes
-Chiefs, W -- No
-Ravens, W -- Yes
-Browns, W -- Yes
-Bengals, W -- No
-Dolphins, L -- No

That brings us to the point we are in 2006. By my count, that's 7 games played on a "championship level."

I'd say the 2006 team has played 6 games on a "championship level."

Against lesser opponents, you say? The 2004 Bengals were 8-8. The 2004 Dolphins were 4-12. The 2004 Browns were 4-12. The 2004 Rams were 8-8. The 2004 Cardinals were 6-10.

I can't explain what "it" is. But those teams had "it" and they showed "it" against the good teams in the regular season. I ask how many times this season has the 2006 Patriots demonstrated on the field, not in the stats, that they had "it".IMO, not many.

I can explain "it" for you. "It" is something that also explained quite nicely:

I would be willing to bet that if most of us were told that if we play turnover free in the last 2 games, we would have the same # of turnovers as the 04 team, we would be surprised by that. I think we have a tendancy that every time something goes wrong to compare to a tainted memory that those teams never did anything wrong.

"It" is that special quality you remember the 2003 and 2004 teams having, looking back. As I explained in my first post...:

Human tendency is to inflate the achievements of the past while downplaying the achievements of the present. For example, we may think back to January 2005, remember that dominating 20-3 win over the Colts in the dusk snow of the Razor, and say "the 2006 Patriots haven't been able to do that." This game, along with other exciting playoff wins, is played on a win-or-go-home stage where these achievements are most remembered.

Lost in the past are games such as the shootout win against the Bengals, or the loss in Miami to a team with the exact opposite record as the Pats, or a humiliating shutout loss in Buffalo. They're forgotten when we recall the past. However, when similar situations occur in the present, such as a shootout win against the Lions, or a humiliating shutout loss in Miami, these performances are scrutinized. Observations of the game spawn dire predictions and "this isn't the same team as 2003/4" statements. Human nature.

 

[Miguel]

So the 2003/4 teams are better because they did something that would have been impossible for the 2006 team to have done?

No, they are better because they have close to the same stats while playing a much tougher schedule.

 

[Miguel]

"It" is that special quality you remember the 2003 and 2004 teams having, looking back. As I explained in my first post...:

FWIW - I thought that those teams were championship-caliber teams during the regular season, not just looking back.