masslefty33 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Not only are the Patriots better this year in my opinion, I have facts to back it up. Pats 2003 (21.7PF vs 14.8PA) Pats 2004 (27.1pf vs 16.25 pa) 1 more 1st down than opponents 54 more 1st downs than opponents Outscored opponents by 110 Outscored opponents by 177 3.4 yards per carry 4.1 yard per carry 41 sacks for and 32 allowed 45 sacks for and 26 allowed Brady 85.9 QB Rating Brady 92.6 QB Rating A. Smith 642 yards rushing C. Dillon 1635 yard rushing 5039 yards for 4666 yards against 5722 yards for 4972 yards against What am I missing when you say that the Pats are not as good as last year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masslefty33 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 Not only are the Patriots better this year in my opinion, I have facts to back it up. Pats 2003 (21.7PF vs 14.8PA) Pats 2004 (27.1pf vs 16.25 pa) 1 more 1st down than opponents 54 more 1st downs than opponents Outscored opponents by 110 Outscored opponents by 177 3.4 yards per carry 4.1 yard per carry 41 sacks for and 32 allowed 45 sacks for and 26 allowed Brady 85.9 QB Rating Brady 92.6 QB Rating A. Smith 642 yards rushing C. Dillon 1635 yard rushing 5039 yards for 4666 yards against 5722 yards for 4972 yards against What am I missing when you say that the Pats are not as good as last year? 649593[/snapback] the first numbers on each line represent 2003 and the second 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Depends on what context it's in. Injuries are certainly something you'd have to take into consideration if you're talking about the matchup this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.D.Morrison Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 (edited) Hard to argue those stats....... maybe they were better this week last year than they are this week this year due to injuries..... Edited January 11, 2005 by J.D.Morrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masslefty33 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 Depends on what context it's in. Injuries are certainly something you'd have to take into consideration if you're talking about the matchup this week. 649600[/snapback] I understand injuries are a part of it, but it is not like Ty Law just got hurt. He has been hurt for more than 1/2 of the season, and he got hurt in the first game agains the Colts and played off and on until the 3rd quarter and sat the rest of the way. I was responding to the people saying they agreed with Vanderjerk's assement that the Pats are not as good as they were last year. The stats say that not only are they as good, but better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 You forgot to add that Manning is 0-6 at Foxboro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I understand injuries are a part of it, but it is not like Ty Law just got hurt. He has been hurt for more than 1/2 of the season, and he got hurt in the first game agains the Colts and played off and on until the 3rd quarter and sat the rest of the way. I was responding to the people saying they agreed with Vanderjerk's assement that the Pats are not as good as they were last year. The stats say that not only are they as good, but better. 649615[/snapback] I don't think anyone is talking about Ty Law. We all know they're 7-1 without him. But injuries to the entire secondary are a problem, inlcuding Poole and Samuel and Wilson and Gay. You just signed Hank Poteat to help fill in. You can look at all the numbers in the world, but if the injuries on defense don't concern you I think you're missing something. Take into the fact that the rules changes that went into affect specifically because of last years Colts - Pats playoff game, I think it's making people believe that the Pats are going to have a very hard time against the Colts this week. Stats and numbers are one thing, rules changes and injuries are another. Should be a great game though. I feel like a kid getting ready for Christmas morning, I literally can't wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I seriously doubt either team is underestimating the other. Even if the Colts look at the Pats secondary, they have to remember their record in Foxboro and the Pats overall record at home for 2 seasons. Even if the Pats look at the Colts record in Foxboro, they have to remember that thy are weak in the secondary against one of the strongest passing teams the NFL has seen, and that virtually nobody has been able to stop them all year. Vandy's comments are just something to stick in the Pats players craw a bit while they get ready, but in the end I doubt it will make much difference. Neither team will take the other lightly, and it will be a helluva game!!! OHHHH to get tickets! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I seriously doubt either team is underestimating the other. Even if the Colts look at the Pats secondary, they have to remember their record in Foxboro and the Pats overall record at home for 2 seasons. Even if the Pats look at the Colts record in Foxboro, they have to remember that thy are weak in the secondary against one of the strongest passing teams the NFL has seen, and that virtually nobody has been able to stop them all year. Vandy's comments are just something to stick in the Pats players craw a bit while they get ready, but in the end I doubt it will make much difference. Neither team will take the other lightly, and it will be a helluva game!!! OHHHH to get tickets! 649653[/snapback] Not to mention, if there was ever a coach who could come up with a game plan to fit who he puts on the field, that guy is Bill Belichick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masslefty33 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 I don't think anyone is talking about Ty Law. We all know they're 7-1 without him. But injuries to the entire secondary are a problem, inlcuding Poole and Samuel and Wilson and Gay. You just signed Hank Poteat to help fill in. You can look at all the numbers in the world, but if the injuries on defense don't concern you I think you're missing something. Take into the fact that the rules changes that went into affect specifically because of last years Colts - Pats playoff game, I think it's making people believe that the Pats are going to have a very hard time against the Colts this week. Stats and numbers are one thing, rules changes and injuries are another. Should be a great game though. I feel like a kid getting ready for Christmas morning, I literally can't wait. 649643[/snapback] Yes, I agree with you that the Pats Def will struggle with the Colts Offense. That being said, the Pats offense is MUCH improved, and i think that the gap between the Pats O and Colts D is wider than the Colts O and Pats D..... I will take a report card of 2 B's instead of one "A" and an "F" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilthorp Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Does anyone want to mention for about the 50th time that Manning is winless at Foxboro. For Christ sake, someone is like a retarded version of Mr. Obvious. Your numbers are a little off from what I can tell. It appears that the Patriots have given up about 50 more yards this year than they did last year. Their defense certainly gave up more touchdowns, and their turnover ratio is lower in 2004. You can make arguments that the team is not as good in 2004 as the defense gave up more points than the team did in 2003, but the offense also scored a ton more, so it's hard to make that type of argument stand up. They are more balanced, but their defense certainly isn't better than 2003 statwise. Only counting their divisional foes once, the combined record of teams the Patsies played in 2003 was 102-106, and in 2004 it was 103-105....pretty even. In 2003, they only played 3 teams in the regular season that went to the playoffs, but they played 5 teams that made it to the playoffs this year. If I had to cast a vote on whether or not the Patriots are a better team in 2004 than in 2003, I would say "yes" because of the better balance on offense--although as it has been pointed out, the injuries may kill them, and this weekend's match-up is a tough one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 At this point it is unimportant how their 2003 season compares to their 2004 season. What is relavent is how healthy is their team NOW and how do they matchup with Indy next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilthorp Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 At this point it is unimportant how their 2003 season compares to their 2004 season. What is relavent is how healthy is their team NOW and how do they matchup with Indy next week. 649723[/snapback] The original post was comparing numbers from 2003 and 2004 so whether you find it "unimportant" is not the point...it was part of the thread. They are a better team on offense, which will allow them to control the ball for longer periods of time and help their defense stay off the field. Whatever defensive problems they have can be overcome by a much better offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Don't forget that Belichek has been preparing for the Colts for 2 weeks; and getting the field ready to their liking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uglytuna Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Please add.... Brady is 6-0 in the postseason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 (edited) Not only are the Patriots better this year in my opinion, I have facts to back it up. Pats 2003 (21.7PF vs 14.8PA) Pats 2004 (27.1pf vs 16.25 pa) 1 more 1st down than opponents 54 more 1st downs than opponents Outscored opponents by 110 Outscored opponents by 177 3.4 yards per carry 4.1 yard per carry 41 sacks for and 32 allowed 45 sacks for and 26 allowed Brady 85.9 QB Rating Brady 92.6 QB Rating A. Smith 642 yards rushing C. Dillon 1635 yard rushing 5039 yards for 4666 yards against 5722 yards for 4972 yards against What am I missing when you say that the Pats are not as good as last year? 649593[/snapback] The schedule they had this year had a lot to do with those numbers. Miami twice, Arizona, San Francisco, Cleveland. Easily the 4 worst teams in the league. Edited January 11, 2005 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilthorp Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 The schedule they had this year had a lot to do with those numbers. 649777[/snapback] That's a cop out, Capt. They played more playoff teams this year than last year, and the records of the teams they faced are virtually identical in 2003/2004. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 All of these stats are very interesting. I actually love reading them all but there is only one stat that I think will matter in NE this week. Turnovers. They have been the downfall of the Manning led Colts in Foxboro. This season's week 1 contest was a prime example. The Colts had 3 Turnovers, 1 INT & 2 Lost Fumbles and the Pats had only 2, 1 INT and 1 lost fumble. And as we all know the Pats pulled out the win by a mere 3 points. These teams are probably the 2 best teams in football, sorry Menudo, but it's true. They match up very well, so as costly as turnovers always are, they will cost double in this game. Win the turnover battle, win the game. If there are no turnovers, this could end up being one of the best games in NFL History. Go Colts!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Colts win big... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinatieri Is God Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 OHHHH to get tickets! 649653[/snapback] I thought you went to all the games? I will enjoy an adult refreshment in Section 122 in your honor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Okay, I'll play. The Patriots overall numbers from 2004 were, of course, influenced by their schedule. Consider that they played out their year against SF (2-14), NYJ (10-6), MIA (4-12), CIN (8-8), CLE (4-12), BAL (9-7), KC (7-9) and BUF (9-7). In their last eight games, they had three winning records to face and two of them were inter-divisional. That means they went against teams that ended up 53-75 this season. Over the course of the final eight games last year, they faced opponents that went 65-64 over the final eight weeks. So, easier schedule in 2004 though they lost one more game in that time span. Against a softer schedule this year, they allowed 1795 passing yards and 10 TDs. In 2003, they only allowed 1574 passing yards and 8 scores and that was skewed because Manning had 4 scores against them. Otherwise, they only allowed 4 passing scores to 7 of their final 8 opponents. They allowed only three of those teams to throw even one score. In 2004, they allowed every one of their final 8 opponents to throw for a passing touchdown except for BAL (who doesn't much anyway). In 2004, for the final eight games, they were great against inter-divisional opponents of BUF and NYJ. They were pretty good against the soft teams of SF (189-1), MIA (198-1), BAL (93-0). But consider what the secondary has allowed when facing a team that could actually throw well in the last half of the season - CIN (328-3) and KC (377-2). Over the last eight games of 2003, they had 17 interceptions but in 2004, they only had 12 despite facing heavy weights of Ken Dorsey (1), Feeley (0), Luke McCown (2) and Boller (1). Five of the 14 interceptions this season came against Bledsoe and Pennington. There is no argument that they can gameplan against divisional foes. Outside their division, they have gotten worse in every measure in the passing game. The NE offense has improved - no doubt. They have a running game now and that helps tremendously and Brady is throwing every bit as well as last season. But the defense is definitely worse in the passing game and Manning always had good statistical games against the Pats even when they had CB's - they no longer have pro-bowlers there. They have a rookie and a second year player unlike the first time this year when the Colts almost beat them. NE has struggled through a relatively light schedule to end their season. Their defense has become worse over the last half of the year and now has to face the Colts who are easily the best offense in the league right now. It will be interesting since there is no questioning that NE has the best coaching strategy in almost every game they play. They just have lesser players and a lesser overall defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 (edited) Please add.... Brady is 6-0 in the postseason. 649772[/snapback] You have nothing to add. Kindly shut yer yapper. Moran. Welcher. Apologize to DMD and co. in advance, but I really can't help myself. Hugh :Randy Moss: One Edited January 11, 2005 by Hugh 0ne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 All of these stats are very interesting. I actually love reading them all but there is only one stat that I think will matter in NE this week. Turnovers. They have been the downfall of the Manning led Colts in Foxboro. This season's week 1 contest was a prime example. The Colts had 3 Turnovers, 1 INT & 2 Lost Fumbles and the Pats had only 2, 1 INT and 1 lost fumble. And as we all know the Pats pulled out the win by a mere 3 points. These teams are probably the 2 best teams in football, sorry Menudo, but it's true. They match up very well, so as costly as turnovers always are, they will cost double in this game. Win the turnover battle, win the game. If there are no turnovers, this could end up being one of the best games in NFL History. Go Colts!! 649821[/snapback] I agree 100%. When the Colts lose, it's because Manning throws picks. The question will be if the Pats defense has the tools to force Manning to throw picks. The better NE offense won't be the key in this game. The Colts are used to being scored upon. The question will be what the NE secondary does against the best WR trio in the league. I also thing Dwight Freeney could have a HUGH impact on this game as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 methinks you've been OWNED by DMD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 This will be an amazing game to watch...go COLTS!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.