Tom Curran: 2004 Patriots vs. 2014 Patriots who wins?

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Brady’s ankle had a lot to do with him not being able to buy a millisecond in that pocket. Stephen Neal getting injured hurt too. The San Diego Chargers rolling Brady’s ankle were the real MVP’s nobody knew about.

Broncos won by their home field advantage alone. The game should’ve been at Gillette, where they would’ve been blown out. Failing to beat either the Jets or Dolphins and not securing home field advantage throughout was BB’s biggest blunder.

Nobody wins on 'home advantage alone'. And I'm talking moreso about their run in general and not just one game given how bad Denver's offense was - the defense carried the team to a championship including completley shutting down the Panthers. When you look at what that defense did, I don't think our 03/04 defenses are very far behind and totally capable of similar success in this era too.

SB42 was their DL annihilating our OL, let's not take credit from where it's due. Brady's ankle may have played a factor in his overall mobility but there were a # of plays where he had no chance to do anything ankle or not. The biggest example of this i can think of is the sack early in the 3rd quarter that made BB go for it on 4th and 13. He had no shot of making anything happen there even if the ankle was perfect.

 

[Deus Irae]

The rule changes haven’t stopped good defenses from shutting down good offenses. Sb 42, 2015 broncos, this years sb(and I wouldn’t even consider that defense an elite one) are just a few examples.

Sure they have. Scoring is up almost a full 2ppg.

And one reason to pick 2014 over 2004 under 2014 rules is that Law, while a HOF level talent, lived on physicality, not speed/quicks. Today's game for CBs is about speed/quicks, and physicality gets called a penalty. So Law would not have been Law in 2014. You can argue that there are all-time level defenses who can shut down all-time level offenses, but that's still about the very best defenses and matchups (Think great Bears '85 defense, then look at the game against the Dolphins). And, no matter what we want to say about the Patriots defenses in 2004 and 2014, neither is a top 10 all-time level defense. Not only that, but the 2014 Patriots put up 28 points in the Super Bowl against one of the defenses that so many do consider a top 10 all time defense.

Imo Theres no offense that cant be stopped if you have the kind personnel we had in 03/04 , they were stacked on the defensive side and they had the experience.

Anything can happen in a one game comparison. Any offense can be stopped once. Any defense can be shredded once. The issue is likelihood a/k/a percentage chance. And I don't think 2004 has much chance to win more than 2-3 out of 10 against 2014 playing with 2014's rules. Playing with 2014's rules, the potential edge of 2014 Patriots defense v. 2004 Patriots offense is likely to be much more in favor of that 2014 defense than any potential 2004 defensive edge over the 2014 offense.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I'd take 04 because of matchups.

Roman and Rodney blanket Gronk.

Poole & Asante or Gay double Jules.

Gay/ Geno cover DA

Ty owns JoJo.

14 oline was average at best. Good luck with 04 front 7.

 

[robbomango]

I think the 14-2/12-4 record difference is pretty accurate; the 2004 team was better. A better comparison would be all 3 of our 14-2 SB-winning teams.

I think the 2014 squad could've went 13-3 easily, they rested key guys the last game of the season against the Bills at home, Brady only played a half and Gronk didn't see the field if I remember correctly.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

2016???

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Sure they have. Scoring is up almost a full 2ppg.

And one reason to pick 2014 over 2004 under 2014 rules is that Law, while a HOF level talent, lived on physicality, not speed/quicks. Today's game for CBs is about speed/quicks, and physicality gets called a penalty. So Law would not have been Law in 2014. You can argue that there are all-time level defenses who can shut down all-time level offenses, but that's still about the very best defenses and matchups (Think great Bears '85 defense, then look at the game against the Dolphins). And, no matter what we want to say about the Patriots defenses in 2004 and 2014, neither is a top 10 all-time level defense. Not only that, but the 2014 Patriots put up 28 points in the Super Bowl against one of the defenses that so many do consider a top 10 all time defense.



Anything can happen in a one game comparison. Any offense can be stopped once. Any defense can be shredded once. The issue is likelihood a/k/a percentage chance. And I don't think 2004 has much chance to win more than 2-3 out of 10 against 2014 playing with 2014's rules. Playing with 2014's rules, the potential edge of 2014 Patriots defense v. 2004 Patriots offense is likely to be much more in favor of that 2014 defense than any potential 2004 defensive edge over the 2014 offense.

Yes, great defenses can get shredded and strong offenses can get shut down. My point was there are examples in the recent era where when all is on the line a great defense can beat a great offense one way or another, despite the changes in rules. That is why it's hard to play the x's and o's game because say if one team dominates in the trenches it can make all the theoretic wr vs db matchups moot. IIRC the interior portion of our line in 2014 was Wendell - Stork - Connolly, solid and they held up when they needed to but its not a particularly strong interior. I'd give a considerable edge to 2004 in the trenches and the best way to make Brady look human is to pressure with 4 or less. Teams have done it before and after the stressing of contact / PF penalties. Brady with a clean pocket has put together amazing high profile games even without a ton of talent at wr/te (sb38, 2004 afcc, sb51). So I'd take the advantage of the 04 team on the defensive side + elite rb over the upgraded pass attack of the 14 team.

A couple other things to keep in mind, the 2014 offense was essentially one dimensional against teams with a strong front. Blount was a non factor in most of those games. While Brady got us past Baltimore and Seattle essentially on his own, it's not something I'd rely on consistently against higher competition, as amazing as he is. The 2004 team was more well rounded and gives you the best odds to win, without as much stress on your main guy. It is why they won their playoff games fairly comfortably (against stiffer competition at that , 12 win colts + 15 win steeler + 14 win eagles) while ‘14 had 2 games they very easily could have lost.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

04 oline was average at best. Good luck with 04 front 7.

I believe you meant to say the 14 oline was avg at best? If so yea thats one of my biggest reasons for choosing 04, they were flat out nasty up front and I could see them tossing 14 around pretty good.

 

[pazrul72]

I take 04 for one very simple reason that I haven’t seen mentioned enough. Corey Frickin Dillion was a man among boys that year. I have not before or since seen a guy able to take a game with 6-8 mins left and just end it. You knew they were running, against 8 or 9 man boxes, and it just didn’t matter. So while I would expect a tight low scoring game I think 04 would control the clock and wear down the defense until the final drive ends it in the suffocating fashion they had. Where is the strength of the 14 defense? That secondary of Revis and Browner. Where was it weakest? LB’s. As this last Super Bowl proves a punishing ground game is still valuable and the matchup dictates you take the team with the better run game.

 

[The Brandon Five]

I dunno. 2004 team did not have "Mr. February". Also, the secondary was decimated. Not an ideal scenario for facing an offense that has Gronk, Edelman, Dola and the GOAT.

 

[goheels22002]

Ok, here's a question for thought:

If you're using the 2004 team, but using the 2014 rules, how are you stopping Gronk without sacrificing the ability to cover Edelman, Amendola, LaFell, and Vereen?

On a conference call to resolve this question, Marshall Faulk said 2004 Bill Belichick would secretly film 2014 Bill Belichick's walk through in the hotel ballroom. Ted Wells said that 2014 Tom Brady would deflate eleven of twelve footballs to gain an edge and then hand the ball off to Legarrette Blount for 148 yards and three touchdowns. Walt Coleman mumbled something about not being able to find his glasses as Commissioner Roger Goodell struggled to remove the red foam ball Matt Patricia had superglued to Goodell's nose.

 

[supafly]

04 oline was average at best. Good luck with 04 front 7.

Both the 2004 and 2014 offensive lines allowed a total of 26 sacks on the season, and the 2004 rushing attack was statistically better in both yards and YPC.

When you say “good luck w/04 front seven,” I’m taking it to mean that you feel the 2004 front seven was better. Is that correct? I would agree with that.

The 2004 team had a tougher road to get there, too. They had to beat the NFL darling in Manning who was a 3 seed, and then had to beat a 1 seed on the road at Pittsburgh, in order to face the 1 seed from the NFC.

As you recall, the 2014 team faced a 6 seed and a 4 seed in order to make it to the SB, where they faced the top ranked SEA team.

 

[luuked]

As always it would come down to what rules we are using.

2014 wins easily over the 2004 team if the current set of rules is applied, the other way around if we use the ones from their era.

And the 2007 and 2016 teams would most probably **** on both of them.

 

[Kontradiction]

Sure they have. Scoring is up almost a full 2ppg.

And one reason to pick 2014 over 2004 under 2014 rules is that Law, while a HOF level talent, lived on physicality, not speed/quicks. Today's game for CBs is about speed/quicks, and physicality gets called a penalty. So Law would not have been Law in 2014. You can argue that there are all-time level defenses who can shut down all-time level offenses, but that's still about the very best defenses and matchups (Think great Bears '85 defense, then look at the game against the Dolphins). And, no matter what we want to say about the Patriots defenses in 2004 and 2014, neither is a top 10 all-time level defense. Not only that, but the 2014 Patriots put up 28 points in the Super Bowl against one of the defenses that so many do consider a top 10 all time defense.



Anything can happen in a one game comparison. Any offense can be stopped once. Any defense can be shredded once. The issue is likelihood a/k/a percentage chance. And I don't think 2004 has much chance to win more than 2-3 out of 10 against 2014 playing with 2014's rules. Playing with 2014's rules, the potential edge of 2014 Patriots defense v. 2004 Patriots offense is likely to be much more in favor of that 2014 defense than any potential 2004 defensive edge over the 2014 offense.

I’m putting Law on LaFell or even going the more unconventional route and sliding him onto Gronk (since I’m not sure anyone else on the ‘04 defense can handle Gronk) and Asante on Edelman when they’re in man to man, which I’m assuming will be the majority of the time since zone against Brady is a death wish. I’m not sure how the 2014 OL consistently holds off the 2004 front, either. That’s why I give the edge to 2004. The bigger question - could 2014 hold 2004 Dillon to under 100 yards?

 

[RobertWeathers]

I believe you meant to say the 14 oline was avg at best? If so yea thats one of my biggest reasons for choosing 04, they were flat out nasty up front and I could see them tossing 14 around pretty good.

Arg. Yes. With that said Brandon Gorin wasn't a All Pro RT either

 

[RobertWeathers]

I’m putting Law on LaFell or even going the more unconventional route and sliding him onto Gronk (since I’m not sure anyone else on the ‘04 defense can handle Gronk) and Asante on Edelman when they’re in man to man, which I’m assuming will be the majority of the time since zone against Brady is a death wish. I’m not sure how the 2014 OL consistently holds off the 2004 front, either. That’s why I give the edge to 2004. The bigger question - could 2014 hold 2004 Dillon to under 100 yards?

04 would pound on Gronk all day. That's really the strategy.

Willie &Vrabes would chip him all day.

If he did get a free release Roman would bang him at 5-10 yds and clutch and grab on the short stuff.

Rodney would take him out in the secondary.

With that said Gronk would still get his catches and yds but the strategy would be to wear him down.

 

[Kontradiction]

04 would pound on Gronk all day. That's really the strategy.

Willie &Vrabes would chip him all day.

If he did get a free release Roman would chip him at 5 yds and clutch and grab on the short stuff.

Rodney would take him out in the secondary.

With that said Gronk would still get his catches and yds but the strategy would be to wear him down.

Gronk got chipped every game of his career. While the ‘04 front was great, I’m not sure anyone was capable of covering him. Rodney wouldn’t have been up to the task either. But I think where 2014 would really hurt ‘04 would be Vereen and White in the passing game. Even if White wasn’t White yet. The ‘04 front was big. Because of how badly they’d whip the ‘14 OL, Brady would have to get rid of the ball quickly and I don’t see Colvin, Willie, or Vrabel being up to the task of covering those two out of the backfield. While the 2014 Patriots would be one dimensional, meaning Brady would probably have to throw it 50+ times, I don’t see the 2004 offense having to do that.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Both the 2004 and 2014 offensive lines allowed a total of 26 sacks on the season, and the 2004 rushing attack was statistically better in both yards and YPC.

When you say “good luck w/04 front seven,” I’m taking it to mean that you feel the 2004 front seven was better. Is that correct? I would agree with that.

The 2004 team had a tougher road to get there, too. They had to beat the NFL darling in Manning who was a 3 seed, and then had to beat a 1 seed on the road at Pittsburgh, in order to face the 1 seed from the NFC.

As you recall, the 2014 team faced a 6 seed and a 4 seed in order to make it to the SB, where they faced the top ranked SEA team.

Yep the 04 front 7, 8 was a wrecking machine.

Sey
Warren
Green
Bobby
WV
Tractor
Willie
Roman
Colvin
Vrabs
Tedy
Ted Johnson

To me, the more time passes on that collection of talent grows in stature.

 

[RobertWeathers]

As always it would come down to what rules we are using.

2014 wins easily over the 2004 team if the current set of rules is applied, the other way around if we use the ones from their era.

And the 2007 and 2016 teams would most probably **** on both of them.

I'm pretty sure both teams has the talent to adjust to rule changes

 

[Ring 6]

2007 beats all the other Brady era Patriots teams. As for the 2004 v. 2014 comparison:

2014 probably beats 2004 if the rules are 2014 rules, and 2004 probably beats 2014 if the rules are 1004 rules.

Many other patriot teams were better than the 2007 Giants.

 

[luuked]

I'm pretty sure both teams has the talent to adjust to rule changes

I don't think so. The 2004 team relied way more on physicality than the later 2010 teams. Hell they were specifically built like that. Some of the hits that were common back then would be ejections now.

Teams are simply built differently now because of how the game has evolved with respect to its rules.