“The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Asher77. Show Asher77's posts

    Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”

    The Pats loses in the SB's has nothing to do with a need for a better RB and a shift into more of a non shotgun, non pass on every critical down team.

    It would be the same if we won both those games. Why is this whole debate based around the Tyree catch, or Asante drop. 

    GET OVER IT and think about next years team please or do nothing but whine about it on the "let's cry about the SB thread"

    The thread is we have not won a SB since we had a viable running game. That is 100% true but is not the reason we lost, there is questions about would we have won if we did and the answer is maybe. Just like we might have won if we used those 1st rounders on trading up in drafts, or if BB drafted non midget CB's ect ect ect ect.

    The Pats, in my humble opinion, will be a more potent balanced team next year offensivley and I think thats a good thing. I think BB wants this and will rely less often on the golden arm of TB thus making the times we do rely on that golden arm more effective.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Asher77. Show Asher77's posts

    Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”

    ok, got a little frustrated lol

    My interpritation of the thread OP's point was this

    " Other teams Defensive coordinators and Patriot offensive coordinators have not paid attention to the Pats running game since we last won a SB and thus it has not been viable, why and should that fact be changed? "
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”

    In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”:
    [QUOTE]In Response to “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,” : Actually the reason you won ur 3 sb's and not the past 2 is fairly simple: in 01, 03 and 04: younger, better Bruschi, Vrabel, Harrison, Seymour, et al and especially Vinitieri... in 07 no Seymour, older D and no Vinitieri in 11 none of those guys at all nothing lasts forever....even cold november rain
    Posted by JintsFan[/QUOTE]

    yet our defense let up less point the last 2 SB's then they did in 2 out of the 1st 3, and really the 07 game we let up the same amount of points as we did to the Rams in our 1st SB.

    Our dynasty defense was great, but we won 3 SB's because Tom Brady and our offense was balanced and could make enough plays to win. We have not done that since and have scored 15.5 ppg in our lst 2 SB's, a shocking number for 2 of the highest scoring offense's in NFL history.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from timesedge. Show timesedge's posts

    Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”

    In response to "Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”": [QUOTE]LOL blaming a lack of a dominant rushing game for 2 SB losses is silly. Has nothing to do with Asante dropping an easy INT, or the NE Dline failing to sack Eli, or Tyree catching a ball with his helmet, or BB leaving 5'9" Ellis Hobbs 1v1 against 6'4" Burress on the final play when NE was up by 4. Has nothing to do with Brady not completing a wide open pass to Welker to ice the game, nothing to do with Manningham making an incredible catch and has nothing to do with the fact that Eli played brilliantly both games. These aren't game NE was blown out in, both losses were nail biters, could have easily gone NE's way. They happened to lose. When you have a superstar 1st ballot HOF QB you are going to leave it in his hands and throw most of the time. Same as the Colts with Peyton, GB with Rodgers, NO with Brees, NY with Eli..etc. 1st 3 SB's NE was a mistake free team. Last 2 SB's NE made more mistakes then their opponent and therefore, they lost. Simple as that. Posted by cantstopme[/QUOTE] THANK YOU!!! About time someone REASONABLE showed up. This is my point exactly. The games we WON were nail biters too. One or two plays either way win or lose most superbowls. It just so happens that the Giants had those plays go their way in the last 2 SBs.
     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”

    In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”:
    [QUOTE]LOL blaming a lack of a dominant rushing game for 2 SB losses is silly. Has nothing to do with Asante dropping an easy INT, or the NE Dline failing to sack Eli, or Tyree catching a ball with his helmet, or BB leaving 5'9" Ellis Hobbs 1v1 against 6'4" Burress on the final play when NE was up by 4. Has nothing to do with Brady not completing a wide open pass to Welker to ice the game, nothing to do with Manningham making an incredible catch and has nothing to do with the fact that Eli played brilliantly both games. These aren't game NE was blown out in, both losses were nail biters, could have easily gone NE's way. They happened to lose. When you have a superstar 1st ballot HOF QB you are going to leave it in his hands and throw most of the time. Same as the Colts with Peyton, GB with Rodgers, NO with Brees, NY with Eli..etc. 1st 3 SB's NE was a mistake free team. Last 2 SB's NE made more mistakes then their opponent and therefore, they lost. Simple as that.
    Posted by cantstopme[/QUOTE]

    BS

    If you can't see that a handoff is a lot more efficient and less likely for calamity than a pass, than you're blind.  An offense attacking, running the ball wears down a defense, rather than simply falling back on their heels all game in pass protection... common sense.

    Yes those early teams were more efficient, less mistake prone, part of that was running the ball and grinding it out like the Giants did to us.


     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”

    In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”:
    [QUOTE]I have to disagree with your assessment that they need an improved run game to win the SB. After all, they WOULD have won the SB if the D got the stop at the end. I think even bigger than the run game being mediocre with BJGE is that the other WR being manned by stiffs was a serious flaw. It looks like they have tried pretty hard to address that from their signings. Of course an improvement to the run game is only a plus but I don't think lacking that excludes them from winning a SB.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]
    It is really hard to make a season come down to a single play but the Pats win that game if Welker makes that catch or if Nink says onsides. Imporving the recievers helps in general but to say they lost because D or poor reciever play is not really that fair.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”

    In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”:
    [QUOTE]In Response to “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,” : Actually the reason you won ur 3 sb's and not the past 2 is fairly simple: in 01, 03 and 04: younger, better Bruschi, Vrabel, Harrison, Seymour, et al and especially Vinitieri... in 07 no Seymour, older D and no Vinitieri in 11 none of those guys at all nothing lasts forever....even cold november rain
    Posted by JintsFan[/QUOTE]
    07 Tyree catches a ball he shouldn't
    11 Welker doesn't catch a ball he should
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from NonChalant1. Show NonChalant1's posts

    Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”

    In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,” : BS back at ya Giants didn't grind anything out, Eli was 30 for 40 passing with 0 turnovers. Brady was 27 for 41 with 2 turnovers. This was a QB dual and Eli won, plain and simple. Eli played his best, Brady didn't. Bradshaw's 72 yards on 17 carries were a result of a precise passing attack with an elite QB and elite receivers. With the addition of Lloyd you'll see the running game improve. Teams won't be able to stack the box and crowd the middle with a threat on the outside.
    Posted by ricky12684[/QUOTE]
    I think this is really unfair because through 3 quarters Brady had outplayed Eli.  Also, people always ignore the defense the other guy is playing against.  Brady playing against the Pats defense would win too.  People act like Eli was went up against anything near what Brady did in the first SB between them. 
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”

    In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,” : Bradshaw's 72 yards on 17 carries were a result of a precise passing attack with an elite QB and elite receivers. With the addition of Lloyd you'll see the running game improve. Teams won't be able to stack the box and crowd the middle with a threat on the outside.
    Posted by ricky12684[/QUOTE]

    Funny argument considering the Pat's were better at running the ball than the Giants, who just happened to run it more, despite not being as good at it as the Pats were. 

    It was a low scoring game, high percentage of passes by both teams not coincidently... your call on BS doesn't seem to carry as much weight now huh? You probably should have checked the yards per carry before speaking.


     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from bradleyBliss. Show bradleyBliss's posts

    Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”

    In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”:
    [QUOTE]Your headline is rather misleading. It really isn't the thrust of the article. But I might note to Woody rather, that we havent won a SB since we had big play guys on D. And we only won it once with Dillon, so what's he talking about there?
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]


    Hey Babe!

    I agree on the defense. We have not won a Super Bowl without Ted Johnson.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”



    Eli completed 75% of his 40 passes.  That was his best completion percentage all year (and all last year too). That had something to do with things too.  It suggests that the Giants passing offense was working well--and the Pats' passing defense wasn't.  
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”

    Pro, I'm gonna do that too watch...

    Brady completed 16 passes in a row, the best in the Super Bowl history. This suggests that the Patriots pass offense was working well and the Giants defense wasn't.  Then our run game was open for the tune of 4.5 ypc for our lead back. Now if we had adjusted to the run a bit more like the Giants did, then we would have maintained some clock....as the Giants did. But we didn't. They did. Better offensive game plan was executed by the Giants and in a close game this turned out to be the difference.

    If our offense had maintained just 1 more drive in the 3rd or 4rth qtr, the pressure would have been greater on NY to score more then a FG late in the game.

    Now before you respond at least tell me this...Do you agree that if either our 38 second or 1 minute 18 second drives in the 2nd half turned out to be a 4-5 minute drive (even if we didn't score) that the outcome of this game would have been different?
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”

    It's not just more balance on offense we're talking about, it's about having enough defensive playmakers (i.e., pass rush and being able to cover) to actually win some games for the team and being able to get off the field.

    It's about shifting away from a total reliance on passing offense to win games. Nothing wrong that philosophy - if you want to be known like the Colts...win a whole lotta games, but never winning the one that counts.

    Right now, this team is the New England Colts.
     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”

    In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”:
    [QUOTE]
    Posted by ricky12684[/QUOTE]

    You just showed you don't know what you're talking about.  Addai/Rhodes were used wisely by Dungy and were the two MVPs of that game, not Gomer?

    Did you watch that SB? Indy used their RBs and controlled the game.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”

    In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”:
    [QUOTE]Pro, I'm gonna do that to watch... Brady completed 16 passes in a row, the best in the Super Bowl history. This suggests that the Patriots pass offense was working well and the Giants defense wasn't.  Then our run game was open for the tune of 4.5 ypc for our lead back. Now if we had adjusted to the run a bit more like the Giants did, then we would have maintained some clock....as the Giants did. But we didn't. They did. Better offensive game plan was executed by the Giants and in a close game this turned out to be the difference. If our offense had maintained just 1 more drive in the 3rd or 4rth qtr, the pressure would have been greater on NY to score more then a FG late in the game. Now before you respond at least tell me this...Do you agree that if either our 38 second or 1 minute 18 second drives in the 2nd half turned out to be a 4-5 minute drive (even if we didn't score) that the outcome of this game would have been different?
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    He won't answer that. The reality is, if we got just a FG on either the Brady INT drive or Welker's drop drive, we win the SB.

    Brady knows it, I know it. 
     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”

    In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,” : did you read my post? what is your point? what are you even talking about? i already said the colts were the last team to win with a solid running game. that was in 2007 since then it's been all passing. again, what are you even talking about?
    Posted by ricky12684[/QUOTE]

    You posted a photo of Gomer, which led one to believe that you don't need a run game to win a SB.

    Indy is noted for not really using much of a run game and they won the SB that year BECAUSE they woke up,.They ran the ball and then their D looked better to boot.  It appeared your were saying Indy didn't need one when you posted a pciture of Gomer holding the trophy.  If that was not your intent, I am not sure what you're intent was.

    Every single team, even if it's more lethal in the passing game HAD to have a viable rushing attack. Every SB winner and loser, for that matter, since we've seen our struggles in the postseason with our pass first/finesse offense, has had a run game.

    We've ben the lone team to steer away from it with our lead back.  Even the Arizona Cardinals used a lead back in their offensive scheme more so than we did.

    When GB won their SB, rookie Starks was a great option for them, as was their use of Kuhn and Brandon Jackson, with Rodgers not in the shotgun as much as we see Brady here.

    NOs had it with Pierre Thomas/Mike Bell and strategic use of Reggie Bush as a scatback.

    We use Woodhead as a lead back and then sub BJGE to predictably run.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share