I think references people are making (however tempting) to 2009 are hollow. Here are some reasons why:
1. Ed Reed, Terrell Suggs, and Ray Lewis are all two years older (and slower). Still great players, but a half-step slower. That may make a difference.
2. In 2009, the Patriots didn't have Wes Welker (injured the week before), Aaron Hernandez, or Rob Gronkowski (the latter two were still in college). Nobody in the NFL has yet shown the ability to stop this trio.
3. In 2009, the Patriots went 10-6 and scored 427 points. In 2011, the Patriots went 13-3 and scored 513 points. The Pats' offense is significantly better this year than it was in 2009.
4. The 2009 Patriots went 4-4 over the last 8 regular season games, with the average game score being 25.3-21.3. The 2011 Patriots went 8-0 over the last 8 regular season games, with the average game score being 36.4-19.8. In other words, the 2009 Pats weren't exactly storming into the playoffs on a roll. The 2011 Patriots are playing great football.
5. The 2009 Ravens, despite having a worse record than the 2011 Ravens, were actually a better team. Here are their rankings:
Offensive Rank
2009 - #9 pts, #13 yds, 2.6 oSRS
2011 - #12 pts, #15 yds, 2.6 oSRS
Defensive Rank
2009 - #3 pts, #3 yds, 4.9 dSRS
2011 - #3 pts, #3 yds, 3.5 dSRS
So not only was the 2009 Ravens' offense better, their defense was better too.
So what we have here is this:
- The 2011 Ravens are a worse football team than the 2009 Ravens.
- The 2011 Patriots are a better football team than the 2009 Patriots.
- The Patriots under Brady are 6-1 lifetime against Baltimore.
- The Patriots are at home, where they are 8-1 this year. Meanwhile, Baltimore is 4-4 on the road this year.
None of this means that the Patriots will win. Not at all. The Ravens are really good. But it does mean that the inevitable comparisons to 2009 are fundamentally, and fatally, flawed.
