In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
Sorry, you're deep into denial if you think that was a great unit. Champ is telling us that this talent was "awesome" and instead says that BB's coaching style and schemes are outdated. Really? Manning's 75% completion rate was because Belichick can't coach? Does anyone seriously believe such drivel? Let me tell you the real story: the only reason this team won so much during the regular season with that secondary was because Bill Belichick is such a great game planner and coach and because the offense (with Gronk healthy) scored lots and lots of points.
And as far as Wozzy with his "nothing matters but points and turnovers" line, if you're going to go that route, then why add "turnovers"? Just say all that matters is the final score. Because for wins and losses that really is all that matters. The bottom line is the bottom line. But if you want to understand why a team wins and loses and not just know the outcome of the game, you need to look at a lot more than just the score. Stats don't give you the full answer, but they help you measure different aspects of a team's performance so you can begin to evaluate that performance. And when a secondary allows a 75% completion rate--a full 30 completions on 40 attempts--it is not performing well. The fact is, the Giants were able to mount extremely long drives in the Super Bowl and score on half their drives--not so much because they ran a lot, but because they passed so effectively, converting 18 first downs on those 30 passes. The secondary was a liability that allowed the Giants to execute their game plan, keep the Pats offense off the field, score enough points to win, and get the big play when they needed to at the end of the game. You can look at the point total and say "wow, the Pats' defense played great," but you'd just be completely and utterly wrong. They played poorly and gave up relatively few points not because they were able to stop the Giants but because they allowed the Giants to keep moving down the field at a slow steady pace that ate up all the time in the game and prevented anyone from getting many scoring chances.
I love how this argument falls in your favor, but only if we follow your rules. I have to ignore turnovers because, inconveniently for you, the Patriot offense turned the ball over twice and that was the difference in a close game.
I love how adjectives like "great" are used by you to describe our secondary, and somehow they are attributed to us.
I love how talent matters, but only if you're you're talking about talent on the field, talented, experienced coaches mean nothing, talented coordinators and in game adjustment guys are unnecessary.
By this rationale our new offensive line coach Dave DeGuglielmo is automatically as good as Scar and his decades of experience just because Belichick is the head coach and probably sat him down Clock Work Orange style, dosed him with acid and made him watch hours of film with his eyes pried open. O'Brien is automatically as good as Charlie Weis because BB is the head coach and is omniscient and omnipresent. The coaches were teaching the young players, talented or otherwise, everything they need to know because BB has passed down the knowledge of the ages to his young fresh faced coaches and nothing fell through the cracks. You've obviously never managed large groups of people or had to replace employees in positions of leadership.
We're not saying the recent teams were All Pro teams top to bottom, but then neither were those early 2000 teams, the 2001 had more holes in it than swiss cheese. But the reality is those teams were better coached, great play calling and adjustments masked any weaknesses they may have had. The players they had were better coached, prepared, coordinated and frankly older and wiser...
The defense has been in the process of being rebuilt the last six years or so, but they were serviceable. The offense lost it's way under less capable hands at the rudder, they became finesse and less multifaceted, they relied on fewer players to do more and in the process became easier to defend; predictable. When an opposing defensive coordinator says as much that's usually a bad sign.
Coaching matters, talented managers matter, you talk about talent but ignore the loss of talented managers and coaches as if they don't matter at all. In a sport that has 80 players right now vying for a job and 53 man active game day rosters leaders and teachers are everything. The talent level in the NFL is relative, there is talent enough to round, even on lesser teams, the difference between winning and losing is coaching. Two guys promoted from our coaching ranks have gone on to become the youngest head coaches in the league, numerous coaches and assistants have been poached from us.
Just because BB is the best head coach and defensive coordinator it doesn't necessarily make us the best coached teams at all times. Young coaches, less talented coaches can hinder the growth of draft picks as much or more than simply picking the wrong players in the draft.
Points scored/points allowed and turnovers in that order, that's not my statistical analysis that is Belichick talking, and more importantly that is pure and simple logic. This game with all it's intricacies and nuances at its core is a very simple game. Don't try to convince us that two turnovers and less than 20 points scored in the modern NFL is good offense, even a fool can see otherwise.