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

  1. 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,”:
    In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,” : you're suggesting turnovers were the difference, along with lack of execution (welker wide open incompletion) non of this has anything to do with a lack of running attack... again, what are you even talking about?
    Posted by ricky12684


    If we ran the ball on 1st down like a normal team might, just once in a while on the Brady INT that started the 4th qtr, not only would running not have led to an INT, we likely extend our TOP position.

    Don't play dumb asking what I am talking about here, Ricky. 
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. 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,”

    In Response to 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?
    Posted by TrueChamp


    Yeah, sure one or two more sustained drives by the offense could have changed the game. So could have one or two shorter or less productive Giants' drives. 

    Where I am not sure I agree is that running the ball more would have led to the sustained offensive drives you're looking for.  The two drives that we did sustain on offense were hurry-up drives.  Those worked.  Maybe we should have done more of those?  In fact, even the Giants' coaches said they were surprised we got away from the hurry up.  It was working.

     
  6. 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,”:
    In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,” :  Where I am not sure I agree is that running the ball more would have led to the sustained offensive drives you're looking for.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid


    All year we looked better running the ball. 

    In fact you had the "instant karma" game with the week 3 loss to the Bills that was entirely due to the Pats having a lead, refusing to run off some clock and losing because of it.  

    The following week all anyone on the Patriot's sideline from Tom Brady down was talking about "balance," how have to be able to run the ball when we have a lead.  The next game against the Raiders Law Firm had 16 carries and Ridley had 10... it was a blowout.

    As the season went on we forgot the lessons we learned during the year apparently because it was back to the same old tired passing attack against the most dominant pass rush in the NFL in the Super Bowl.  

    Even if you think we're better off passing the ball, playing into an opposing defense's strength is suicide.

    If you think taking away half of any offense, on any team with any QB is smart football then you've been playing too much fantasy football. One dimensional is never better.  It would be better to be able to do both well and be able to keep the other team off balance and bewildered.  

    We've had the ablity to do that, our offensive coordinator's have chosen not to. That's poor game planning, period. 


     
     
  7. 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,”:
    In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,” : All year we looked better running the ball.  In fact you had the "instant karma" game with the week 3 loss to the Bills that was entirely due to the Pats having a lead, refusing to run off some clock and losing because of it.   The following week all anyone on the Patriot's sideline from Tom Brady down was talking about "balance," how have to be able to run the ball when we have a lead.  The next game against the Raiders Law Firm had 16 carries and Ridley had 10... it was a blowout. As the season went on we forgot the lessons we learned during the year apparently because it was back to the same old tired passing attack against the most dominant pass rush in the NFL in the Super Bowl.   Even if you think we're better off passing the ball, playing into an opposing defense's strength is suicide. If you think taking away half of any offense, on any team with any QB is smart football then you've been playing too much fantasy football. One dimensional is never better.  It would be better to be able to do both well and be able to keep the other team off balance and bewildered.   We've had the ablity to do that, our offensive coordinator's have chosen not to. That's poor game planning, period.   
    Posted by wozzy



    too true. Where's offensive game plan b when opponents are successful putting pressure on Brady and covering the receivers well?

    and, I still contend, that the pass rush and secondary need to improve too.  This still is not a defense that can make critical stops  when they need to.
     
  8. 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,”:
    In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,” : you're late, and obviously lost, because i've already discussed this with other posters. you're all over the place dude. "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."   wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong you are clearly in your own little fantasy land. SB XLVI winner Giants- NY Giants RB's- 28 carries for 125 yards 1 TD SB XLV winner Packers- GB Packers RB's- 11 carries for 52 yards 0 TD's SB XLIV winner Saints- NO Saints RB's- 16 carries for 59 yards 0 TD's SB XLIII winner Steelers- Pitt Steelers RB's- 22 carries for 56 yards 1 TD SB XLII winner Giants- NY Giants RB's- 23 carries for 87 yards 0 TD's since NE last SB victory the NFL has become a QB driven league. Passing teams have won the majority of SB's led by superstar QB's. You have to go back to 1997 to find a RB who was SB MVP. turnovers, defense, and execution has been NE's problems. blather on....
    Posted by ricky12684



    Yes, running the football is not needed for Tom Brady.  I'm in a "fantasy land" because I'm not a teenage dork named "Ricky" playing Madden all day.

    3/4 of the games you listed have teams running the ball with a lead back with enough efficiency to show a running game.   They also have QBs that didn't throw horrendous INTs or wild throws due to a predictability in playcalling.

    I'm glad you've enjoyed our finesse offense folding like a cheap suit in the playoffs.

    All of a sudden running the football is not needed here because we have Tom Brady. How's that worked out for us? 

    14 Points
    17 Points

    FAIL AND FAIL.  The other teams you list had better efficiency in its proven in the fact they used lead backs.  Even when Pitt beat Arizona, they used one lead back. They didn't constantly sub for Willie Parker.  

    Welcome to reality, insecure geek.  The guy posts a picture of Gomer with no explanation and doesn't realize the only reason why a finesse COlts offens WON their SB is because they committed to a run game and then lashes out trying to backpedal away from what he meant. lol

    The irony.



     
  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,”

    In Response to 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,” : ^^^^^ this was the reason why i posted a pic of "gomer".... read it then read my post, then read your post, then maybe you might have a clue.
    Posted by ricky12684


    lmao

    I have more knowledge of this game in my pinkie than you do in that video game controller of yours. 

    I blame this on Madden and fantasy football leagues.  We have a whole generation of bozos running arond enamored with throwing the football almost exclusively, thinking thta's how you win every game you play.

    No wonder why Pats fans are mocked around the country.  Not all, but ones like these are.

    Fundamentals? WHo cares!

    Gee, it's only how we won 3 SBs.
     
Sections
Shortcuts