End of a dynasty?

[Jackass]

The only good teams they put the screws to in the regular season was Pittsburgh and San Diego (and the SD game was early in the season when SD traditionally sucks). Beating the crap out of the weak AFC East and the Browns/Bengals inflates their defensive ranking. Every other good/playoff team put up 20+ points on the Patriots that season.

 

Arguing that the 2007 Patriots defense was good is like arguing the 1999 Rams defense was good or that the 2009 Saints defense was good. It was good insomuch as the offense forced the other team to be both one-dimensional and to take risks because they had big deficits to make up. Forcing the other team to be desperate can mask a lot of your shortcomings-- completely demoralizing the other team (which happened more than once in 2007) can make you look really, really good.

 

Furthermore, my point was that the point of emphasis change, while having an effect on the regular season, has a MUCH more dramatic effect on the post-season where the real shenanigans were happening, hence the regular season metrics don't apply as much.

 

Patriots Postseason opponent scoring average 2001-2004: 17.2

Patriots Postseason opponent scoring average 2005-2009: 20.7

 

Given the small sample size, the 01-04 Patriots are negatively affected by giving up 29 to the Panthers in the Super Bowl, just as the 05-09 Patriots are positively affected by holding a crummy Jacksonville team to 3 points in 05. Throw out those outliers and it's an even more dramatic difference (15.8 to 23).

 

Yeah, I'd say something changed from 2004 to 2005 and beyond in the postseason. I wonder what it was?

 

2006: Should've made the super bowl. If not for a dropped Troy Brown pass on a 3rd and 4, probably would have.

2007: Completely dominated. If not for a fluke catch and Asante Samuel missing on a fairly easy interception, would've won the super bowl

2008: Brady out the whole year. Still finished 11-5 with a qb who has not proved to be anything more than average.

2009: Defense sucked; Brady wasn't 100%

[Balzac]

The only good teams they put the screws to in the regular season was Pittsburgh and San Diego (and the SD game was early in the season when SD traditionally sucks). Beating the crap out of the weak AFC East and the Browns/Bengals inflates their defensive ranking. Every other good/playoff team put up 20+ points on the Patriots that season.

 

That's what made them good teams - good teams put up points against good defenses. Going through the games and cherry-picking stats doesn't really make much sense unless you do it for every other team as well. When you look at what every other team did, the Pats stacked up 4th in the NFL - there's no way around this. Did the Pats have tougher schedules in 2001-2004? Need to consider that as well if you're going to attack their schedule in 2007.

 

Arguing that the 2007 Patriots defense was good is like arguing the 1999 Rams defense was good or that the 2009 Saints defense was good. It was good insomuch as the offense forced the other team to be both one-dimensional and to take risks because they had big deficits to make up. Forcing the other team to be desperate can mask a lot of your shortcomings-- completely demoralizing the other team (which happened more than once in 2007) can make you look really, really good.

 

2007 Pats - D ranked 4th in NFL; 2009 Saints - D ranked 20th in NFL - come on. Not even close. The STL D in 1999 WAS good. You seem to have an issue with giving credit to defenses on offensive powerhouses.

 

Furthermore, my point was that the point of emphasis change, while having an effect on the regular season, has a MUCH more dramatic effect on the post-season where the real shenanigans were happening, hence the regular season metrics don't apply as much.

 

Patriots Postseason opponent scoring average 2001-2004: 17.2

Patriots Postseason opponent scoring average 2005-2009: 20.7

 

What are the comparative stats for all of the teams that were in the playoffs during those seasons? I'd be interested to see the ppg increase overall in the playoffs over the same periods. Did this affect only the Patriots?

 

Given the small sample size, the 01-04 Patriots are negatively affected by giving up 29 to the Panthers in the Super Bowl, just as the 05-09 Patriots are positively affected by holding a crummy Jacksonville team to 3 points in 05. Throw out those outliers and it's an even more dramatic difference (15.8 to 23).

 

These are my favorite types of statistical arguments - throwing out "outliers" as if they never happened. Why would we throw out defensive performances against "crummy" teams (whether a team that was in the top half of the league in offense and avg'd 23ppg is crummy is a different story)? These aren't outliers at all - they're exactly what teams should be doing, so you would expect to see them reflected in avg stats.

 

Yeah, I'd say something changed from 2004 to 2005 and beyond in the postseason. I wonder what it was?

 

One thing it wasn't - an increase in pts allowed in the playoffs. In 2005, Pats allowed 15ppg - how do you explain that, in light of the fact that it was 17pp in 2004? Like many teams, the Pats had some ups and downs from 2005-2007 (admittedly, their D has sucked the last 2 years due to personnel changes and general aging, so there's no reason to even factor those years into the equation) but their D was overall very good. There's nothing in these stats supporting your argument that their D somehow fell off a cliff after 2004 - it just isn't there.

[MrTed46]

Really? They made it to the SB and lost on a freak play where David Tyree soaked his hat in Krazy Glu. You're going to say that their inability to win that year was because they couldn't play D the same way they were permitted to in years past? They were easily the best team in football and lost on a circus play. It happens.

 

 

lol, if they were the best they would have won the super bowl. Go look up the best. And the David Tyree play you are crying so much about was a GREAT F'ing catch and not a just circus catch. He did not catch it by accident and he had his mind set of on the way down to not let the ball touch the grass one bit. And lets not mention how manning got away from that nasty defense to make a perfect throw.

 

Years later and still crying about the worst record I have ever seen.

Edited January 12, 2010 by MrTed46

[Jackass]

lol, if they were the best they would have won the super bowl. Go look up the best. And the David Tyree play you are crying so much about was a GREAT F'ing catch and not a just circus catch. He did not catch it by accident and he had his mind set of on the way down to not let the ball touch the grass one bit. And lets not mention how manning got away from that nasty defense to make a perfect throw.

 

Years later and still crying about the worst record I have ever seen.

 

Great catch, but still a freak play.

 

The argument is that the Pats dynasty was in decline since 2005. Nothing that happened during the 2007 season supports this.

[Squeegiebo]

 

|

|

˅

 

 

[Balzac]

Great catch, but still a freak play.

 

The argument is that the Pats dynasty was in decline since 2005. Nothing that happened during the 2007 season supports this.

 

 

Nice to have someone around who is able to read words and actually process their meaning before responding . . .

[Balzac]

lol, if they were the best they would have won the super bowl. Go look up the best. And the David Tyree play you are crying so much about was a GREAT F'ing catch and not a just circus catch. He did not catch it by accident and he had his mind set of on the way down to not let the ball touch the grass one bit. And lets not mention how manning got away from that nasty defense to make a perfect throw.

 

Years later and still crying about the worst record I have ever seen.

 

anyway . . .

 

the best team doesn't always win. you know this - everyone knows this.

[Caveman_Nick]

|

|

˅

 

 

 

<3

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

anyway . . .

 

the best team doesn't always win. you know this - everyone knows this.

+1

 

It's the only way you can explain Superbowl's 36 and 37.

[Balzac]

+1

 

It's the only way you can explain Superbowl's 36 and 37.

 

36 I agree 100% - STL was the best team in football that year. I sometimes still can't believe that the Pats won that one.

[keggerz]

People (Pats fans) seem to want to point to the reason they lost in the SB vs the Giants is because of a "freak play"

but take a look at the numbers.

 

The Pats regular season avgs followed by what they put up in the SB

Offensive yards/game 411.25.....311(24% less)

Passing yards/game 295.69.......266(10% less)

Rushing yards/game 115.56......45 (61% less)

TDs/game 4.56...............2

TOP 32.30.........29.33

Offensive yards/play 6.2......4.0 (35% less)

 

One "freak play" did not lose that game for the Pats.

[keggerz]

Patriots Postseason opponent scoring average 2001-2004: 17.2

Patriots Postseason opponent scoring average 2005-2009: 20.7

 

 

What are the comparative stats for all of the teams that were in the playoffs during those seasons? I'd be interested to see the ppg increase overall in the playoffs over the same periods. Did this affect only the Patriots?

 

scoring in the playoffs from 2005-2009 (2080 points scored) decreased by 1.60 (7%) points/game versus 2001-2004 (2048 points scored)

the Pats are giving up 20% more in PPG from 2005-2009 than they did in 2001-2004

 

edit: i initially posted numbers that had 2004 added into the 05-09 stats...the above is now fixed

Edited January 14, 2010 by keggerz

[Balzac]

People (Pats fans) seem to want to point to the reason they lost in the SB vs the Giants is because of a "freak play"

but take a look at the numbers.

 

The Pats regular season avgs followed by what they put up in the SB

Offensive yards/game 411.25.....311(24% less)

Passing yards/game 295.69.......266(10% less)

Rushing yards/game 115.56......45 (61% less)

TDs/game 4.56...............2

TOP 32.30.........29.33

Offensive yards/play 6.2......4.0 (35% less)

 

One "freak play" did not lose that game for the Pats.

 

Huh? They played a better defense than they would normally play - no surprise that their offensive numbers were down for that game. Not sure what that has to do with this discussion though.

 

Of course the freak play wasn't the sole cause of the loss - it was just the most improbable and flukish one. It was a bizarre play that, if replayed 50 more times, probably wouldn't result in the same outcome again. That catch was ridiculous. Not taking anything away from Tyree - he did his job on that play better than anyone else could have, but I doubt he'd be able to do it twice. It was a whacky, flukish play. I'm not saying that the Pats were robbed or that the Giants didn't deserve to win - they did. I'm just saying that a lot involved in that play was luck. Happens all the time in football though - Pats have gotten lucky their fair share of times as well.

[Czarina]

There's a report out that the Pats fired D coordinator Dean Pees today. Thank God. Now they need to a get a real O coordinator too. And a couple linebackers, a couple defensive linemen, a cornerback, a runningback, a decent left tackle.....

[bpwallace49]

They seemed to have gotten old quickly . . . time for some youth and good player development again . .

[pig devilz]

@Balzac...there was HUGH, missed holding call on that play. no excuse, i'm over it, just sayin

 

@Czarina....Pees retired, not fired.

 

@bpwallace....the old retired/traded last year etc....now the youth must grow a set.

[Rovers]

The new occupant of the penthouse in the AFC East will be... The J-E-T-S! Jets, JETs, JETS!

 

[bpwallace49]

@bpwallace....the old retired/traded last year etc....now the youth must grow a set.

 

Really? I know they did some house cleaning, but their O-line looked pretty bad and slow at times this year. That is mainly what I was referring to . .

[Czarina]

@Balzac...there was HUGH, missed holding call on that play. no excuse, i'm over it, just sayin

@Czarina....Pees retired, not fired.

 

@bpwallace....the old retired/traded last year etc....now the youth must grow a set.

Yeah, sure he did. I know that technically he told them he was leaving but he knew he wasn't going to get renewed when his contract was up at the end of this month. All they did was let him "save face" by opting out.

[Czarina]

The new occupant of the penthouse in the AFC East will be... The J-E-T-S! Jets, JETs, JETS!

 

I fear this is true unless they really restock.

[pig devilz]

Yeah, sure he did. laughing.gif I know that technically he told them he was leaving but he knew he wasn't going to get renewed when his contract was up at the end of this month. All they did was let him "save face" by opting out.

 

eh, maybe. cut the guy some slack after that scare in Houston....i think he would have left on his own anyway you slice it.

Edited January 16, 2010 by pig devilz

[Czarina]

@Balzac...there was HUGH, missed holding call on that play. no excuse, i'm over it, just sayin

 

@Czarina....Pees retired, not fired.

 

@bpwallace....the old retired/traded last year etc....now the youth must grow a set.

 

 

Yeah, sure he did. I know that technically he told them he was leaving but he knew he wasn't going to get renewed when his contract was up at the end of this month. All they did was let him "save face" by opting out.

 

He "retired" his way all the way to become the linebackers coach for the Ravens. Downgrade Ray Lewis appropriately.

[Cunning Runt]

They made the SB by being the best overall team in the AFC. It wasn't just offense, as you seem to be implying - the Pats had the #4 defense in the NFL in 2007. Their offense was prolific, but their D was excellent as well.

 

 

 

. . . because they didn't have a good offense, this was the brand of football that they had to employ to succeed. They didn't have a mediocre offense by design.

 

 

 

Again, they were the #4 defense in football in 2007 - the D set up the offense just fine. They got Moss and Welker and their offense exploded (i.e., they didn't have to rely on the dink and dunk Os of the past - had nothing to do with their defense).

 

 

 

Their D had a precipitous drop-off from 2004 to 2005, but it was back to being the #2 D in the NFL in 2006 and #4 in 2007. The facts simply aren't supporting your arguments here.

 

 

 

It was the best team the franchise has ever had. If you think that adding a historically prolific offense to an excellent defense is a completely different MO, that's your call - I simply think that their offense caught fire because they added 2 amazingly gifted WRs to a team that already had very smart QB and a top D. Easy math.

 

Getting in late on this one.

 

You reference that their D was #4 overall. Statistically speaking that may be true, but when your offense scores so many points that the opposing team is forced to play one-dimensioned (ie - have to pass to stay in the game), it masks a great deal of the D's weaknesses because they're able to play almost strictly pass defense. Their defensive stats were a direct result of their offensive ones. Take away those offensive stats and they come back to the pack in a hurry.