Patriots were more dominant than we realized.

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I think if Gronkowski had been healthy all year, they would equal the 2004 squad for dominance. As it stands, I would put them just behind the '04 squad as their best Super Bowl winning team. The league has changed a lot in terms of points and passing, and consider this: in 2004, their dominant defense allowed 260 points; although we can all admit they played some soft offenses, this defense in a different, higher scoring NFL, allowed ten less points, at 250.

Offensively, this team outscored the '04 squad, though just barely, 441-437. Of course, you'd also need to mention that the GOAT was out for four games and that two games were started by a rookie QB.

Summed Up (Points Scored/Allowed)

2004: 437-260
2016: 441-250

While the '16 team lost Gronkowski, the '04 team lost Ty Law, arguably their best defensive player, so both squads overcame a massive injury.

Both teams finished 17-2. Though the suspension and injury to Gronkowski is arguably the tiebreaker win, I still give the nod to the '04 just because I recall they had a very tough schedule and were incredible in the playoffs and Super Bowl. A record breaking Indy offense scored just 3 points on them; they blew out the 15-1 Steelers on the road, and the '04 Eagles make many top-10 lists of best teams to not win a SB - that game was not as close as the final score indicated. None of those games were competitive.

 

[glm]

Out of all the SB Champs since 2000, the 2016 Patriots have the best Margin of Victory per game in the regular season. Here's the top 5:

1. 2016 Patriots = 11.94.
2. 2013 Seahawks = 11.63.
3. 2004 Patriots = 11.06.
4. 2009 Saints = 10.56.
5. 2000 Ravens = 10.50.

Out of every SB champion, they're sandwiched right between the 1998 Broncos (12.00) and the 1989 49ers (11.81).

Yeah you could say they were pretty dominant.

 

[Schmo]

When the dust settled, we were a Bradyless loss to Buffalo and a few points against Seattle away from a perfect season. I know football ain't darts, but that's as close to an unblemished season as you can hope for.

 

[neuronet]

When the dust settled, we were a Bradyless loss to Buffalo and a few points against Seattle away from a perfect season. I know football ain't darts, but that's as close to an unblemished season as you can hope for.

why. did. you. do. that. Were you born in 2008?

 

[glm]

CHFF has a stat called the Intelligence Index, which basically judges how smart/well coached teams are. It looks at the difference between a team's bendability (Yards Allowed/Points Allowed), which looks at how hard it is to score on a team, and their scoreability (Yards Gained/Points Scored), which shows how easy the team scores.

Out of all the SB Champs since 2000, the 2016 Pats ranked 2nd. Here's the top 5:

1. 2000 Ravens = 9.20.
2. 2016 Patriots = 7.45.
3. 2002 Buccaners = 7.05.
4. 2004 Patriots = 6.86.
5. 2001 Patriots = 6.76.

Out of all SB Champions they were ranked in between the 1996 Packers (8.08) and the 1972 Dolphins (7.43).

 

[Tony2046]

Debating how good the defense is seems to be becoming an annual ritual.

Does anyone remember this classic? (Hint No)

Will this defense be top ten? (hint: no)

BTW: What happened to Chiuba E. Obele (CEO) ?

 

[RayRay]

I personally could care less about close games. Pats blowing everyone out is the sh*t I like.

 

[Schmo]

why. did. you. do. that. Were you born in 2008?

Yes, I just turned 9 earlier this month.

Just saying... everyone puts the 07 team on a pedestal, but this team was close to being just as good throughout the regular season.

 

[1960Pats]

I think they were 16-3 against the spread. That is at least 3 games better than any other team.

That is ridiculous.

Someone had a graph on here somewhere that showed the Pats not only covering at a phenomenal rate but covering by much more than anyone else. The bookies, especially those around here, are getting hit hard.

 

[glm]

Yes, I just turned 9 earlier this month.

Just saying... everyone puts the 07 team on a pedestal, but this team was close to being just as good throughout the regular season.

No not really. The 2016 Pats were dominant but not 2007 Pats dominant.

The 2007 Pats had a Margin of Victory of 19.7 PPG. To put that into perspective, only 3 teams in all of NFL history did better than that. Those teams were the 1942 Bears (26.6 PPG), 1941 Bears (22.6 PPG), and the 1920 Buffallo All-Americans (20.6 PPG).

Compare that to the 2016 Pats 11.9 PPG and it's not even close.

 

[Ring 6]

No not really. The 2016 Pats were dominant but not 2007 Pats dominant.

The 2007 Pats had a Margin of Victory of 19.7 PPG. To put that into perspective, only 3 teams in all of NFL history did better than that. Those teams were the 1942 Bears (26.6 PPG), 1941 Bears (22.6 PPG), and the 1920 Buffallo All-Americans (20.6 PPG).

Compare that to the 2016 Pats 11.9 PPG and it's not even close.

Close to as good doesn't need to be measured in margin of victory.
They were Brady playing vs Buffalo, and the Seattle game away from matching the 16-0. That is close to as good.

 

[borisman]

Whatever facts the pundits may throw out there about weak schedules, weak QB's and whatever, fact is the Pats, and the local gamblers can attest, covered all but 3 of their games this year. They were favored by DD 5 x's (covered all 5) and by at least a TD 11 x's. The only games they didn't cover were Buffalo (w/Jacoby and missing thumb game), Seattle (I actually took the points in that game) and at the NYJ (the weird 22-17 game). So yeah, they kicked some ass this year.

 

[Stumpy]

This team was just so good, so balanced, that no one (save the Seahawks and a Bills team playing a rookie QB with a broken finger) could stand up.
You're supposed to beat the teams you're supposed to beat...as the saying goes. And we not only beat them, we dominated them all. It's scary when you barely beat a team you're supposed to beat, but when you dominate them, that's when you can tell they're something special.

 

[glm]

Close to as good doesn't need to be measured in margin of victory.
They were Brady playing vs Buffalo, and the Seattle game away from matching the 16-0. That is close to as good.

I responded to his post because he said he doesn't understand why the 2007 pats are put on such a pedestal, so I put it into perspective for him.

The 2007 Patriots are arguably the most dominant (regular season) team that has ever existed in the history of the NFL. You have to go back 6 decades to find a team that matched their dominance (1942 Bears. 11-0 and 26.6 PPG MoV).

Now I look at the 2016 Pats and I see other teams in the SB era that can be argued to be more dominant (regular season wise) than them (1985 Bears, 1984 49ers, 1991 Redskins etc). Teams the 2007 Pats clearly have beat.

You can have your own definition of "close to as good" (it's a very subjective phrase, definitely something not to argue over), I really don't care. But to me, there's a decent gap between the dominance of the 2007 pats and the 2016 pats.

 

[Ring 6]

I responded to his post because he said he doesn't understand why the 2007 pats are put on such a pedestal, so I put it into perspective for him.

The 2007 Patriots are arguably the most dominant (regular season) team that has ever existed in the history of the NFL. You have to go back 6 decades to find a team that matched their dominance (1942 Bears. 11-0 and 26.6 PPG MoV).

Now I look at the 2016 Pats and I see other teams in the SB era that can be argued to be more dominant (regular season wise) than them (1985 Bears, 1984 49ers, 1991 Redskins etc). Teams the 2007 Pats clearly have beat.

You can have your own definition of "close to as good" (it's a very subjective phrase, definitely something not to argue over), I really don't care. But to me, there's a decent gap between the dominance of the 2007 pats and the 2016 pats.

And you can have whatever definition you want but I'll consider the loss that wouldn't havevhapoemed if Brady wasn't stolen from the team for a quarter of the season and difference between a last second loss to Seattle and a loss to Baltimore saved by Rex Ryan calling a time out as close.
I don't consider winning by 30 really more dominating than winning by 20.

 

[glm]

And you can have whatever definition you want but I'll consider the loss that wouldn't havevhapoemed if Brady wasn't stolen from the team for a quarter of the season and difference between a last second loss to Seattle and a loss to Baltimore saved by Rex Ryan calling a time out as close.
I don't consider winning by 30 really more dominating than winning by 20.

That's fine. You have your views and I have mine.

 

[skinnydog]

In 19 games this season the patriots won 15 of them by a 6 or more points.
They won 11 by 13 or more points.

The team with the greatest SB comeback ever had very few tight games all season long.

I find this to be a very I interesting set of stats/analysis. My perception watching games is that most games were competitive for most of the game, but the Pats sustained a high level of play for 4 quarters and eventually pulled away towards the end of games or in the second half. That is, the were usually in control of games but blowing the other team away early on. Also, another reason for end of game point differential is that this defense gave up few cheap points at the end of games.

 

[Ring 6]

I find this to be a very I interesting set of stats/analysis. My perception watching games is that most games were competitive for most of the game, but the Pats sustained a high level of play for 4 quarters and eventually pulled away towards the end of games or in the second half. That is, the were usually in control of games but blowing the other team away early on. Also, another reason for end of game point differential is that this defense gave up few cheap points at the end of games.

I think they actually has very comfortable leads in most games, not that they were tight games and they pulled away late. But I haven't reviewed it that just my memory. I'd bet 10 games were all but over when the 4th quarter started.

 

[skinnydog]

I think they actually has very comfortable leads in most games, not that they were tight games and they pulled away late. But I haven't reviewed it that just my memory. I'd bet 10 games were all but over when the 4th quarter started.

Perhaps you're right. But this team reminded me of the 03 and 04 teams in that they had to grind out more games as opposed to say the 07 and 11 teams that were front runners that jumped out not to just leads but commanding leads in almost all games.

 

[pheenix11]

If Brady hadn't been suspended we would have been 15-1.

And that Seattle game was winnable.