Analyzing the interception.

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

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    3rd and 5
    3rd and 5 
    3rd and 4 
    3rd and 22 
    3rd and 3
    RUN 3rd and 1 
    3rd and 22. 
    3rd and 13. 

    This is why NE passed on every third down. And why the Jets "knew" they would pass. Only two of them were really "running" distances. The Jets weren't "tipped" because NE was so predictable.

    Almost every point you raise is just anecdotal, and doesn't really have any bearing on the actual "mix" of plays. 

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

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    Well my argument has never been that they passed "way" more then they ran. I have always said that the run was what worked in the 1st half but instead of committing to it they reverted back to there pass heavy ways, which coincidentally ended each of the 5 drives. Wouldn't you say that is an accurate statement?

    I discount a reverse strictly for the purposes of our debate because my whole premise has always been we need to use run formations, attack a defensive line and keep them on there heels. I would love to discount our gimmick runs out of the gun as well because it is so obvious when we use them(probably the reason the jets held Woody to just over 3 ypc)

    I think Brady should be under center more then he is now. It would allow our play action to be more effective. I don't want to see us go to even a 50/50 ratio, I just don't want to see us go 3 n out with a lot of passes when the coverage gives us the run.

    We beat our heads against the walls. We are to good offensively to lose at home to the Jets and Ravens. We have become Peytons Colts. We are EASY to game plan against. This is just my opinion, but I obviously feel strongly about it.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]3rd and 5 3rd and 5  3rd and 4  3rd and 22  3rd and 3 RUN 3rd and 1  3rd and 22.  3rd and 13.  This is why NE passed on every third down. And why the Jets "knew" they would pass. Only two of them were really "running" distances. The Jets weren't "tipped" because NE was so predictable. Almost every point you raise is just anecdotal, and doesn't really have any bearing on the actual "mix" of plays. 
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    Sounds like you think just like Bill Obrien. Imagine running the ball on 3rd and 5 OMG the horror. Well don't worry because it won't happen in N.E. You know it, I know it, They know it. And they certainly knew it.

    Also look at the plays that got them into 3rd and 22 or 3rd and longs, either sacks or incompletions. We had I think 1 run for negative yardage?

    I guess you think our offense was just fine and after putting on a dominate display against the same team a few weeks earlier our players were what? Nervous? Did we just have bad luck?

    In your mind what changed in the 2 games?

    BTW We had 24 runs by RBs (17 by Benny) to 29 pass atts. A lot of Bennys production came in the 1st half when he had some big runs and opened up the passing game.(To discount your run the clock out theory). Check the play by play, I can't make this stuff up.
     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : That didn't happen. Here's their playoff games 2001 OAK 63% pass 2001 PITT 61% pass 2001 STL 51% pass 2003 TN  60% pass 2003 IND 54% pass 2003 CAR 58% pass 2004 IND 41% pass 2004 PITT 40% pass 2004 PHI 54% pass 
    Posted by shenanigan[/QUOTE]

    2001 OAK = (Antoine Smith) 20 carries / 65 yards
    2001 PITT = 15 carries / 45 yards
    2001 STL = 18 carries / 92 yards

    Result won Super Bowl

    2003 TN = (Antoine Smith) 16 carries / 69 yards
    2003 IND = 22 carries / 100 yards
    2003 CAR = 26 carries / 83 yards

    Result won Super Bowl

    2004 IND = (Corey Dillon) 23 carries / 144 yards
    2004 PITT = 24 carries / 73 yards
    2004 PHI = 18 carries / 75 yards

    Result won Super Bowl

    So regardless of whether their 1A back was scoring fantasy points, Charlie Weis continued to run the football.  Against defenses like the steelers that were great at stopping the run we passed more obviously, but we still ran enough to keep them honest... and we won coincedentally.  

    And just like I stated earlier in this thread, with Smith and a much less talented O line then they have today they were an average run team and with Dillon a very good run team.  

    Lets jump forward to the fanstasy footballers wet dream 2007 playoffs;

    2007 Jaguars = (Laurence Maroney) 22 carries / 122 yards    win
    2007 San Diego = 25 carries / 122 yards    win
    2007 Giants = 14 carries / 36 yards  (48 pass attempts btw against the #1 pass rushing defense in the league)

    Super bowl loss

    The remaining playoff games since we've chosen to use our third down backs because they were more relevant to the passing game and veered away from a near equal ratio of run plays by an actual workhorse back.

    2009 = (Kevin Faulk) 14 carries / 52 yards

    Loss 1st round

    2010 = (Danny Woodhead) 14 carries / 46 yards

    Loss 1st round

    2011 = ?

    You can show me percentages all you want, as skewed as your stats are because they don't take into account WR screens, short dink and dunk plays that we used to run with Weis that were essentially run plays chalked up as passes that we no longer seem to employ, but it doesn't change the FACT that the further we've gotten from a run balanced offense the less successful we have been in the playoffs.  

    Dispute that...


     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : Yeah, but those are nonsense stats, the ones about Brady not losing when they run 50% of the time that is. It's tautological. Like the stat that NE is 30-1 when a RB rushes for 100.  Winning teams run more on their final drive or so, while the team that is behind tends to pass almost exclusively. Saying that NE wins when the rushy 50% of the time, is like saying they win because they are winning.  Also, run a check of the teams they have gained 100 yards from a single runner on in the Brady era ... only two of them were playoff teams that season, and only four even had winning records.  Again, tautological. It's sort of well known that bad teams a.) can't defend the run, and that the b.) team with a lead tends to run the clock. So the only thing that stat says is what we already know. NE beats the tar out of non-playoff teams, and that when they do that, they like to finish games by running clock.  What I said was that you cannot abandon the run completely. That's a fact. Though I don't, for the life of me, buy the humbug that a.) running Woodhead doesn't count as a run (???), or that b.) running the ball 28 times to 32 passes in 55 minutes of football, before a couple last ditch drives that only featured passes somehow means NE abandoned the run.  In the last three seasons NE is 8-1 when they run for 113 yards or have 28 carries, like in that last playoff game ... that last playoff game is the only one they lost with those numbers.  If NE were ahead in that Jets game in the end, they probably would have run it another 8-10 times, while passing it only a few. The end result would have been a clean 50-50 ratio, and people would have been saying  .... see! 50% rushing = win.  At any rate, the loss was anomalous. But I wouldn't say NE gave up on the run in that game at any point in time, until the last few minutes when running just wasn't an option.  And Shenanigan's point has some merit. But only in situations (for me) where the runner is carrying a 1-2 ypc.  3-4 is good enough, statistically. I mean, the 2001 and 2003 Pats average 3.7 and 3.4 for a whole season. And they got by.  But then, they had great defenses making up for it, and Tom Brady waiting to run some no-huddle in the last minutes. It was a really winning formula. Great QB plus great defense. 
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]


    I once read an article that pointed out that teams that run the kneel down play in the fourth quarter win 100% of the time.  The conclusion was that teams should kneel down a lot more than they do. 

    Shows how stats out of context can lead you to absurd conclusions . . . 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : So they were SUPPOSED TO STICK with the run in the Super Bowl despite averaging LESS THAN 3 yards a carry? It would take 4 carries to get a first down! Tell me you're not really that daft.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    One carry could be for 70 yards... tell me your not... nevermind, you don't have to tell me I already know.
     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : And you know this how?  What if the next 70 carries are one yard each?
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    We'll never know, we can only go by the two previous games where Maroney went for 120 yards in each playoff win and the fact that when he was healthy he was a homerun hitter with 4.4 speed.

    I know we didn't run any more, Brady was sacked 5 times and we lost, how about them apples... 
     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : One carry could be for 70 yards... tell me your not... nevermind, you don't have to tell me I already know.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]


    Yeah! Those 70 yard runs happen a lot - 10 times in team history in only around 15,000 tries. That's about a .00005% chance. Go for it!
     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : You'd rather the Pats play the way YOU want them to and lose than to play their strength and try to win the game-because if they win, you don't having anything to bi(o)t(e)ch about.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    Since I haven't seen anybody here deny BB is the best coach in the game it is puzzling how they constantly question his coaching. And then many of the same peole get angry when his drafting is questioned.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : Didn't Curtis Martin have the last one in like 1996?
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]


    Sedrick Shaw had one in '98. Martin in '97. You have a good memory. I had to look it up.
     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    Lets go more in depth, how about this season;

    Loss to the Bills; Ridely 6 carries
    Loss to the Steelers; Faulk 6 carries
    Loss to Giants; Ellis 12 carries

    What about the aboutface from the Bill loss to the Raiders win where Ridely ran for 96 yards alone on 10 carries aided by Law Firm chipping in another 16 carries for 75 yards.  

    This followed by the win at the Jets where Law Firm had 27 carries for 136 yards.  

    It seems we have to lose before realize the value of the running game, time slowly erodes this until we lose again then we go back to the winning formula of mixing in the run.  It's the Dan Marino curse, having an all Pro QB makes you too reliant on that one guy which in turn makes your team as a whole weak.


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

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : You'd rather the Pats play the way YOU want them to and lose than to play their strength and try to win the game-because if they win, you don't having anything to bi(o)t(e)ch about.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    You would rather they lose passing the ball then win with the proven track record of being balanced.  I know they lost that game trying to pass 48 times. I don't have to create wild hypothetical scenerios to imagine what would happen, it actually did happen.

    I know in 2001 we won a Super Bowl with less talent then we have now, it looks like San Francisco is following this guidebook to a T.  I know they're ranked 5th in rushing attempts with a QB so inferior to Tom Brady it's not even funny, same with Denver ranked #2.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : Yeah! Those 70 yard runs happen a lot - 10 times in team history in only around 15,000 tries. That's about a .00005% chance. Go for it!
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    And PS BoobParilli... it could have been a 30 yard run and his average would still jump back up to 4-5 yards a carry.  Way to avoid the actual point of my message. Boy this must be the special needs thread...
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : Sedric Shaw....you had to bring him up. Martin had a 75 yarder against the Steelers in the 1996 playoffs I think.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]


    You're right. 78 yards. Losing him to the jets svcked.
     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    See I can do it too... rapid fire responses, hidden insults, LARGE CAPS

    I doesn't mean I'm right, just enthusiastic. You guys sure say a lot without actually saying anything.  The difference between my logic and yours is that mine is backed by 3 Super Bowl rings whereas yours is marked with failed playoff attempts and Tom Brady getting the snot kicked out of him by sack happy teams...

    Do you remember a time when Weis was coach and Tom never actually got touched?  Probably not, you guys weren't watching yet I suppose...
     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : But being balanced is not "proven". If Samuel HAD made that pick, they would have won with 48 passes and 14 runs. Would you still be crying balance then?
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    WouldA, shouldA, couldA...

    I don't deal in hypotheticals.

    There's no ring for almost.


     

Share