Reaser wrote:JohnTurney wrote:And I think the Pats defense in early 2000s was underrated, it was excellent. Not so much lately, not bad, but in 2002-2004 or so (going by memory) they were a top 5 defense. Brady does seem to have to carry the team more than before.
Are they underrated? Whenever I think about the Patriots from that era the first thing I think about is their defense. I would suspect that everyone else does, too?
... and of course Brady carries the team more now. The statement is made like the sport is comparable across the board and the same game was being played in the beginning of his career and it is now. It's not, it's a different game. That dictates more than anything, that change. The rules of 2003 and not the same as they are in 2015. if it was the exact same sport then statistical comparisons would make sense. Such as a batting avg. in baseball, in year A it's comparable to year D (in most cases). Passing stats in 2001 aren't comparable to passing stats in 2011, for numerous reasons but beginning with the fact that the sport is played completely different - as dictated by the playing rules.
This stats discussion is odd to me. It's like wondering why passing numbers went up in 1978? Hmm, I wonder. Why did passing and receiving stats explode in 1994? Hmm, I wonder. Why was there a huge jump in passing stats in 2004? Hmm, I wonder. Why with the abysmal QB play in 2015 was a new league wide passer rating record set? Hmm, I wonder.
Underrated by what I see and read in books, internet, etc. They may not be underrated by you. But when you see articles about great defenses it often the 2000 Ravens and 2002 Bucs and the recent Seattle teams. So maybe you suspicion is right, but maybe it's not. I really don't know, but there is not a ton of megamedia on the 2003 Patriots defense, for example, their players are not going into HOF like other teams' players.
But where there is a small flaw in your comparisons. There was not a change in 2007 in the sport as opposed to 2006. Brady's jump was stark, not gradual. And it's obvious that 2001 is not 2011. And the averages suggested do not compare 2001 to 2011, they compare 2001-2006, with seasons very similar with little standard deviation to 2007-2015 with a bit more standard deviation but still, very consistent.
And as you know baseball, too, has differences or "eras" but with the era there are jumps, like in football. 1977 the baseball was cowhide, rather than horsehide. There was a jump in power numbers in 1987. Then the steroid era.
All of those things are accounted for in my OP, because I, too, know about the changes in the game that you are talking about, the rules changes in 1978 and the jump in 1994, the protection of QB and receivers. All that is well and good. But it does not account for the jump in 2007 and the maintaining of that through 2015. It may account for some of it, but not all.
The most reasonable answer is better receiving corps, then the training and dedication. It's said that the 2007 was the "spygate" revenge. 2015 was the "deflate gate" revenge. So, within the game and how rules are enforced, etc, there still are guys going out there and playing the game, they are human, they react to emotion and their bodies respond to a more rigorous training regimes, smart, young OCs who study and come up with ways to beat defenses.
I am suggesting that it's not one thing and that one thing only. Your comments on the changes in the game are certainly part of it, but to me, that's a given. So, it is taken into account, so then what? I submit it's other things, on top of that.