2016 Patriots Tougher Than 2007 Patriots?

[doesntmatter1]

That 2007 squad was in denial of their ability to keep Brady standing and never really tried to change their passing attack to something quicker.

 

[Nehalem]

Lets be honest if the 2007 Pats played the 2016 Pats I think the following 2 things are certain.

(1) The score would be 0-0 after the 1st Q
(2) Whichever Tom Brady got the ball last would drive his Pats down the field for a game winning TD/FG

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Yesterday I flipped a quarter, called "heads", and it came up "tails".

Today I flipped a quarter, called "heads", and it came up "heads".

I can't believe what a p ussy that quarter yesterday was! It is nowhere near as tough as today's quarter!

 

[archstanton543]

(2) Whichever Tom Brady got the ball last would drive his Pats down the field for a game winning TD/FG

Nope. 2007 Tom Brady and Josh McD were obsessed with chucking it downfield to Moss in the waning moments of that game instead of trying to methodically move their way down the field.

 

[Shockt327]

The 2007 Pats remind me of last year's Warriors team. They dominated early at unprecedented levels, teams slowly caught up to them, and they put a lot of effort into a regular season record. By the playoffs, they were tired and were playing not to lose rather than to win. The 2016 team didn't feel that burden.

The 16-0 regular season took its toll....

Couldn't agree more.

I really think the 2007 team was out-of-gas by the end of the regular season; some of it was physical (veteran D) and some mental (i.e Xs and Os).

I'd say it started after Baltimore and Philly threw caution to the wind and utterly sent the house at Brady. I really wouldn't understate this. Brady played his guts out, but he got hit hard. In reaction, McDaniels, understandably, tried to rely less on the spread formation in order to balance the offense, and by running with Maroney in more traditional formations. I remember a fair amount of criticism about this after the Jets and Dolphins games, as well as the AFCCG vs San Diego and especially after the SB loss. Hindsight is 20-20, but I really wish they just stuck with the Gun-empty formations. Regardless, defenses were just getting better at preventing the pass. In weeks 15 and 16, The Jets were the first team to not allow a single TD pass against NE, then Miami (the team that Brady/Moss embarrassed the most, imo) got 2 INTs in one game on Brady. Both games were NEs two lowest in passing yards during the regular season, too.

The D was never bad, but as the season wore-on they had tougher time getting off the field against lesser QBs. It was a problem vs two backup QBs: Kyle Boeller and AJ Feely. David Garrard, though he did have a good season, dink and dunked non-stop in that divisional game. Eli had his best game of the season vs NE in wk 17. They didn't give up points, but they did allow long drives that kept the O on the bench. Age? Sure. Injuries? Sure, Colvin, especially. I'd also say Mike Vrabel started off the season looking elite, and kinda fizzled out toward the end. But I can't blame it on any one thing.

Really, I can't blame it all on any one thing on either side of the ball. I just think, as a whole, they got off of a brilliant start and the rest on the NFL started to catch up more and more.

 

[ALP]

I don't care about 19-0. 2007 soured me on that. I want a banner. As many banners as possible. Real, Patriots banners (not those millenials participation crap things in Indy).

you do realize the people who own, run, coach, etc that team and made the decisions to put up those banners are way past the age of millennials?

your comment would have been more accurate if it was worded " not those baby boomer/generation X participation crap"

 

[farn]

you do realize the people who own, run, coach, etc that team and made the decisions to put up those banners are way past the age of millennials?

your comment would have been more accurate if it was worded " not those baby boomer/generation X participation crap"

You're right of course. I could teach for the next 20 years if it was "dealing with the kids" only. The adults ruin it for everyone. Good call.

 

[Doctor DDS]

It is extremely difficult to win a Super Bowl. The Pats have had teams capable of winning it every year since 2001 except 2002, 2009 and 2013 in my opinion. Not necessarily likely to win it all but capable at the start of the playoffs.

Some years things work out extremely well (2001 with the tuck rule, 2014 with the Ravens comeback and the SB pick off and 2016 with a multitude of SB plays) Other years The Pats were unfortunate (2011 SB with multiple fumbles just out of their grasp and the Manningham catch/Welker drop and certainly 2007 with the Tyree catch in which the refs could easily have called a holding (like the call we got this past SB))

I do not base my final opinion on team toughness on how one or two of these plays went. Of course, winning it all is the ultimate goal but the Pats have had numerous tough teams that either played a poor game at the wrong time, had a call or break go against them or ultimately saw the other team just make an incredible play -it happens.

 

[stinkypete]

Nope. 2007 Tom Brady and Josh McD were obsessed with chucking it downfield to Moss in the waning moments of that game instead of trying to methodically move their way down the field.

This is the most true thing that has been posted on this thread. Tom Brady was better in 2016 than he was in 2007. In 2007, he and Moss demolished the NFL for 10 weeks. The rest of the NFL caught up, and Brady's short game was not as refined as it is today.

This also speaks to the depth of the two teams. The 2007 Patriots had incredible depth at WR and several big veteran names on defense, but little depth elsewhere on the roster. Ben Watson was underutilized and the TEs were a non-factor. The pass rush lost is effectiveness once Roosevelt Colvin went to IR. The defensive backs were very shaky beyond Samuel and Harrison. Once Kevin Faulk went down in the second quarter of the Super Bowl, the team lost its last bit of versatility.

 

[Nehalem]

Regardless, defenses were just getting better at preventing the pass. In weeks 15 and 16, The Jets were the first team to not allow a single TD pass against NE, then Miami (the team that Brady/Moss embarrassed the most, imo) got 2 INTs in one game on Brady. Both games were NEs two lowest in passing yards during the regular season, too.

That is not an entirely accurate recounting of how things went down.

Watch New York Jets vs. New England Patriots [12/16/2007] - NFL.com

"With the wind swirling around Gillette Stadium, the Patriots were forced to rely more on their running game."

"Windy conditions made it difficult for both teams' passing games"

I think weather conditions had something to do with the low passing output against the Jets.

And for the Miami game the Patriots lead 28-0 at half-time and then toyed with the Dolphins by throwing deep bombs to Moss in the 2nd half.

And note that these 2 games were sandwiched between Brady throwing for 399 yards against Pittsburgh(most all season) and 356 yards against the Giants.

 

[luuked]

This thread is full of narratives that would have been 180 degrees different if only one pass gets broken up. I don't get why people want to make some kind of story out of the 2007 team.

They were one of the best teams of all time over an entire season and came pretty close to winning it all but unfortunate bounces and injuries took their toll in the end.

 

[MassPats38]

This thread is full of narratives that would have been 180 degrees different if only one pass gets broken up. I don't get why people want to make some kind of story out of the 2007 team.

They were one of the best teams of all time over an entire season and came pretty close to winning it all but unfortunate bounces and injuries took their toll in the end.

The whole premise of 'toughness' in comparing the apples and oranges of 2007 and 2016 is silly. If winning is the defining characteristic of toughness, then winning the heavyweight boxing title in the Holmes era means you are a tougher fighter than Ali, who lost fights in an era of boxing legends. You can only fight the opponent on the schedule, and the level of competition is not always the same.

The Falcons defense was not the Giants defense (and the Giants offense was not the Falcons offense). The defense played better than expected, but gassed themselves in overdrive early on. The Giants were talented across the line (which took away scheming benefits employed by the Pats for less talented offensive linemen) and represented the worst possible match-up for the Pats. The Giants win still required a miracle catch from a nobody (with plenty of uncalled holding).

If you believe the Pats were weak and wussy in 2007, then read the opinion on the leader, Brady, from Justin Tuck here.

I get it - they lost in 2007 (for the armchair critics claiming winners win, feel free to share a time when you stood on a field under those circumstances and proved you were a winner (and no, Madden football does not count)). If toughness always brings wins, then why aren't there more undefeated teams in the NFL? Must be because the other team has its own opinion on toughness and competitiveness and has a say in the outcome.

 

[luuked]

The whole premise of 'toughness' in comparing the apples and oranges of 2007 and 2016 is silly. If winning is the defining characteristic of toughness, then winning the heavyweight boxing title in the Holmes era means you are a tougher fighter than Ali, who lost fights in an era of boxing legends. You can only fight the opponent on the schedule, and the level of competition is not always the same.

The Falcons defense was not the Giants defense (and the Giants offense was not the Falcons offense). The defense played better than expected, but gassed themselves in overdrive early on. The Giants were talented across the line (which took away scheming benefits employed by the Pats for less talented offensive linemen) and represented the worst possible match-up for the Pats. The Giants win still required a miracle catch from a nobody (with plenty of uncalled holding).

If you believe the Pats were weak and wussy in 2007, then read the opinion on the leader, Brady, from Justin Tuck here.

I get it - they lost in 2007 (for the armchair critics claiming winners win, feel free to share a time when you stood on a field under those circumstances and proved you were a winner (and no, Madden football does not count)). If toughness always brings wins, then why aren't there more undefeated teams in the NFL? Must be because the other team has its own opinion on toughness and competitiveness and has a say in the outcome.

I agree. The way people talk about the 2007 team around here is laughable. They should be lauded for an entire regular season of perfection and not critizised for coming a few plays shot in ONE game.

But then again I guess the American mentality is not to celebrate breathtaking achievements but only titles.

 

[mosslost]

I agree. The way people talk about the 2007 team around here is laughable. They should be lauded for an entire regular season of perfection and not critizised for coming a few plays shot in ONE game.

But then again I guess the American mentality is not to celebrate breathtaking achievements but only titles.

Many people on this board have simply no clue when talking about the 2007 Pats. Out of fairness many of the others correctly agree with me.

 

[mosslost]

This thread is full of narratives that would have been 180 degrees different if only one pass gets broken up. I don't get why people want to make some kind of story out of the 2007 team.

They were one of the best teams of all time over an entire season and came pretty close to winning it all but unfortunate bounces and injuries took their toll in the end.

The 2007 Pats are likely the best Patriots team of all time with the possible exception of 2004. ONLY 2004 challenges them though.

 

[mosslost]

It is extremely difficult to win a Super Bowl. The Pats have had teams capable of winning it every year since 2001 except 2002, 2009 and 2013 in my opinion. Not necessarily likely to win it all but capable at the start of the playoffs.

Some years things work out extremely well (2001 with the tuck rule, 2014 with the Ravens comeback and the SB pick off and 2016 with a multitude of SB plays) Other years The Pats were unfortunate (2011 SB with multiple fumbles just out of their grasp and the Manningham catch/Welker drop and certainly 2007 with the Tyree catch in which the refs could easily have called a holding (like the call we got this past SB))

I do not base my final opinion on team toughness on how one or two of these plays went. Of course, winning it all is the ultimate goal but the Pats have had numerous tough teams that either played a poor game at the wrong time, had a call or break go against them or ultimately saw the other team just make an incredible play -it happens.

If winning the Super Bowl was all that mattered, why would we care about 11 AFCCG appearances in 16 years.. or the teams overall winning percentage, etc.. If the Lombardi is all that matters then it would be irrelevant if they went 0-16 in all the non Super Bowl years.

 

[mosslost]

I don't really care if we were 16-0 or 18-0. It was an amazing and historic team, but they lost. Maybe Tom Brady led his team to a touchdown late in the 4th, but so did Eli. Were the 2016 Patriots better than the 2007 Patriots? Maybe. Maybe not. Were they more mentally tough? Yes. Heck, Tom Brady was somewhat ****y back then during the 07 season.

foolish

 

[mosslost]

In a single elimination tournament there are inevitably going to be times when the best team doesn't win.

Winning a championship makes you the best that day. Usually that year's best team is also the champion, but that is not always the case. The process determines a winner but it is not a 100% foolproof way of determining who is best.

>>Winning a championship makes you the best that day. Usually that year's best team is also the champion, but that is not always the case. The process determines a winner but it is not a 100% foolproof way of determining who is best.

This exactly.. @farn

 

[farn]

>>Winning a championship makes you the best that day. Usually that year's best team is also the champion, but that is not always the case. The process determines a winner but it is not a 100% foolproof way of determining who is best.

This exactly.. @farn

I still think you're fun & I like you. I just think "best on that day" - if that day in SB Sunday - is the only day that counts.

 

[mosslost]

I still think you're fun & I like you. I just think "best on that day" - if that day in SB Sunday - is the only day that counts.

ok, cool.