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

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

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

    Per Woody.

    http://bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view/20220322green-ellis_running_away_patriots_losing_back_to_cincinnati/

    Thus far, it's just my opinion that the Patriots haven't made any moves that improve their chances to win another SB.

    w/o improving their pass rush and run game, yes, they will win a lot of games - but I don't think they'll win another superbowl.

    It's still early. It will be interesting to see how the draft and remainder of free agency unfolds.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsfaninpa420. Show patsfaninpa420's posts

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

    I don't know if it is that we didn't have a viable running game or just the patience to stick with it when it mattered most.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Getzo. Show Getzo's posts

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

    Ridley averaged 5.1 yards per carry......  That is all.
     
  4. 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,”

    In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”:
    [QUOTE]Ridley averaged 5.1 yards per carry......  That is all.
    Posted by Getzo[/QUOTE]

    that's great. How many yards did he get in the superbowl game?
     
  5. 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,”

    We wouldn't know since Brady was busy throwing upwards of 40 times with a 17-12 lead.

    Damien Woody is a smart guy. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

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

    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?
     
  7. 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,”

    Antowain Smith had 26 carries in SB 38 for over 100 yards.  BB/Brady teams are 31-1 when a lead back goes over 100 yards in a game.

    It's not just Dillon. We never used BJGE like we used Antowain Smith in SB 36 or 38. All 3 SB wins with Weis had RBs that helped our QB achieve balance. It's beyond arrogant that just because we have Brady and 2007 happened, we don't need a commitment to a run game.   That's the other aspect that is incredibly annoying about this topic. Even Joe Montana needed a run game.  Otto Graham had Jim Brown and so on.

    Trade for MJ Drew, Forte or Jonathan Stewart and let's get on with it.  Woodhead is in the last year of his contract so get him to help Vereen and get an experienced runner in here to help groom Ridley.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

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

    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.
     
  9. 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,”

    If we didn't run Smith in SB 36 and 38 and Dillion in 39, we lose all 3 SBs.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from GO47. Show GO47'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]

    What also improves the defense is a good running game because it keeps the the Patriots offense on the field longer, kills the clock, and wears out their defense. So in this case I think you're both right, a good running game improves your defense because they're rested.
     
  11. 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,”

    He doesn't get that. When the Pats D makes a stop and then Brady immediately turns it over on 1st down, or with a rash of 3 and outs, he thinks it's a good thing.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from cantstopme. Show cantstopme's posts

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

    How many Patriot RB's have won SB mvp's compared to QB and WR?

    The difference is the SB offenses didn't turn the ball over, and the SB defenses forced turnovers.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from GO47. Show GO47'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]How many Patriot RB's have won SB mvp's compared to QB and WR? The difference is the SB offenses didn't turn the ball over, and the SB defenses forced turnovers.
    Posted by cantstopme[/QUOTE]

    It's called balance. They had all 3 phases of the game performing at a high level. Yes the defense was better but so was the running game. Charlie Weis offensive philosophy was to have both the running game and passing game going at the same time. If the other teams started to blitz he would run the best screens ever. It's unfortunate that we've gotten away from that. But there is always hope they will return to it.
     
  14. 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,”

    We had a running game back in the SB days because Brady was not yet the greatest ever. We found that the offense was actualy better when Brady threw the ball more and ran the ball less and that was true up till the point when opposing defenses stopped trying to stop the run and always cheated pass against us. This was magnified the bigger the game and against better defenses. Even when going all out pass a defense needs be good and at the top of there game to stop us. Now we are makeing a fundemental shift these last couple years to switch up the offense and establish more of a smashmouth approach, we have tried the run but didn't have the horse at RB to get there in the end and defenses have yet to make a fundamental switch back to a more balanced attack when playing us.
    Part of the problem was two fold, teams cheated there safties inside and up on us because we didn't have a outside rec threat but we did have Gronk, Wes, to stop. Are runningbacks, BJGE was also not good at getting outside, catching swing passes, or breaking past those 2nd line safties. The defense leaves us holes in the run game making it so any half decent NFL back could get 4-5 ypc on our team but without a guy who can break out past safties and LB's and without the outside rec keeping the safties deep and wide and thus bringing the LB's back a couple steps and forcing them in more coverage it won't work.

    We have loyd, now we get MJD or Forte, T.Rich ect... we will be running all over teams and if they decide to actualy play run against us will get burned deep middle or on the edges/ screens all day long.

    Remember we used to run screen plays all the time, how many have you seen these last few years?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost'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]Antowain Smith had 26 carries in SB 38 for over 100 yards.  BB/Brady teams are 31-1 when a lead back goes over 100 yards in a game. It's not just Dillon. We never used BJGE like we used Antowain Smith in SB 36 or 38. All 3 SB wins with Weis had RBs that helped our QB achieve balance. It's beyond arrogant that just because we have Brady and 2007 happened, we don't need a commitment to a run game.   That's the other aspect that is incredibly annoying about this topic. Even Joe Montana needed a run game.  Otto Graham had Jim Brown and so on. Trade for MJ Drew, Forte or Jonathan Stewart and let's get on with it.  Woodhead is in the last year of his contract so get him to help Vereen and get an experienced runner in here to help groom Ridley.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    Yes.  This is correct.

    And a keypart of a running game - a good running game - is a feature back.  Dillon and Antowain were feature backs.

    Last year BJGE might have been - but he got a measley 175 carries (or so).

    Dillon carried 345 times in a season.  That is a feature back who keeps defenses honest.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tompenny. Show tompenny'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,” : What also improves the defense is a good running game because it keeps the the Patriots offense on the field longer, kills the clock, and wears out their defense. So in this case I think you're both right, a good running game improves your defense because they're rested.
    Posted by GO47[/QUOTE]

    What happens when the defense can't get off the field and has like 1 3 and out in a whole entire SB? Does that make them tired?
     
  17. 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,”

    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,” : Yes.  This is correct. And a keypart of a running game - a good running game - is a feature back.  Dillon and Antowain were feature backs. Last year BJGE might have been - but he got a measley 175 carries (or so). Dillon carried 345 times in a season.  That is a feature back who keeps defenses honest.
    Posted by Schumpeters-Ghost[/QUOTE]

    Dillon ran the ball 345 times and the defense was honest because the league and the Pats was yet to realize just how great TB was and how dangerous.

    When the Pats realized we ran the ball less and went more to shotgun spreads and pass catching backs like Faulk.

    It worked.
     
  18. 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,”

    Now and 2 years ago it was time to switch back, just not something to be done in 1 year just like it was not something to be done going away from the run in one year. Takes a few because of personnel and entire offensive mindset. Before we needed to get rec like Moss and Welker and Stallworth even. Now we need the RB's and the TE's and even a power based offensive line.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

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

    Woodhead and Faulk don't put any pressure on opposing defenses.  Need a feature back to make defenses account every down for our RB
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from GO47. Show GO47'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,” : What happens when the defense can't get off the field and has like 1 3 and out in a whole entire SB? Does that make them tired?
    Posted by tompenny[/QUOTE]

    Have you ever seen where an opposing team's offensive line is dominating the defensive line and can't get off the field what happens? By the middle of the 3rd quarter you start to see the defensive linemen bent over, hands on their knees, gasping for air. Unless the team has quality depth and the coaches make an adjustment it's going to be a long day.
     
  21. 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,”

    We have all the TE's with this years addition of Fells, that group couldn't be better.
    We have the OLine with this years addition of Gallery along with Waters last year and Solder. Mankins supposed to be a run first lineman and even Vollmer. Are line is very solid to be a run based team.

    We have 2 young runningbacks with potential.
    We got an outside and deep rec threat in loyd that will help

    We just need the one stud RB that will complete the puzzle.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from cantstopme. Show cantstopme's posts

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

    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.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tompenny. Show tompenny'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,” : Have you ever seen where an opposing team's offensive line is dominating the defensive line and can't get off the field what happens? By the middle of the 3rd quarter you start to see the defensive linemen bent over, hands on their knees, gasping for air. Unless the team has quality depth and the coaches make an adjustment it's going to be a long day.
    Posted by GO47[/QUOTE]

    You didn't answer the question. If the Pats defense actually got off the field instead of consistently giving up long drives would they be less tired? My guess is yes. Because they didn't do it. The bottom line is the Giants made more plays then the Patriots in both SB and either could have gone either way. You have to make the plays when they are there whether it's the Welker play or the Tyree catch. You have to make it happen. When you don't you lose. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from GO47. Show GO47'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,” : You didn't answer the question. If the Pats defense actually got off the field instead of consistently giving up long drives would they be less tired? My guess is yes. Because they didn't do it. The bottom line is the Giants made more plays then the Patriots in both SB and either could have gone either way. You have to make the plays when they are there whether it's the Welker play or the Tyree catch. You have to make it happen. When you don't you lose. 
    Posted by tompenny[/QUOTE]

    Agree.
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share